The logic of technological progress under capitalism in the context of industry 4.0
Abstract
This study is an attempt to analyze the logic of technological progress critically within the context of the concept Industry 4.0 (thereafter I4.0). In this study, I4.0 and its subcomponents are considered as new discursive tools of technology driven strategies imposed by corporations and the public institutions. This study underlines that technological advancements should not be considered as neutral developments targeting the well-being of all. Since the companies and profit-driven public institutions try to find the ways of the possible benefits of the I4.0 debate, this study draws attention to the necessity of alternative strategies to prevent capitalist hegemony on technological advancements. This article also underlines that technological advancements manipulated by the ruling class segments of the world should be taken into account as one of the causes creating cross-country inequalities and intra-working class conflicts. On the other hand, a potential road map for pro-labor organizations—those which can take responsibilities for the working class struggle—in developing strategies to take the advantage of technological novelties for the benefit of all is discussed in the article. To sum up, it departs to analyze the concept I4.0 and the related issues with a critical perspective.
1 INTRODUCTION
If we consider the recent past, we can state that scientific and technological developments follow a gradual path and, this path intersects with production processes frequently. Actually, this is a reciprocal relation showing itself in the form of scientific development and technology improving the production processes and techniques and, development of the production processes searching for further scientific and technological novelties. It means that the production relations, which are the outputs of the social relations, are in a close relationship with scientific developments.
The significant part of the infrastructural investments concerning the industrial production processes have been technology based investments in core countries. In other words, the ruling classes of advanced/core capitalist countries reached their current hegemonic positions through the rational and pragmatic use of scientific and technological advancements which are effectively mobilized for capitalist accumulation. On the other hand, semi-periphery and periphery countries, which are suffering from competitive infrastructure investments, had/have to be dependent on core countries to catch a development momentum.1
Especially, after the rise of textile (i.e., spinning machine) based production process, the capitalist mode of production has performed a unified development together with technology.2 In other words, technology has played the role of a catalyst in moving the capitalist mode of production one step further.
Although there are different analyses regarding the relationship between technology and industry, we can say that there is a generalized categorization of the phases of techno-industrial developments. We can accept that the steam engine is the very first step of the use of modern technology in production processes, when the last 250 years are considered as the beginning of the integrated process of technological development and capitalism (Dicken, 2015; Wahlster, 2016). The second phase of this process is the introduction of electrical energy and electrified technologies. The third phase corresponds to the last quarter of the 20th century, which is the introduction of the computer based technologies, the first generation being semi or full automated industrial robotic equipment (like robotic arms used in the production processes) and their usage in the industrial processes. And today, it has been claimed that the industry is on the verge of the 4th “revolution.”
At this point, we can state that there is a common claim regarding the relation between the recent technological developments and the production processes. It can be described as follows: The information and communication technologies based on production processes have become more crystalized for 40 years, and they have acquired a more unique characteristic than those of the previous technological developments. The question “Can the robots appropriate the jobs of humankind?” in particular and some other fundamental questions regarding the working principles of working life are raised within the concept I4.0.
The concept I4.0 has been discussed as an approach for years (since 2011) both at the national and international levels, within the context of its transformative capacity regarding the production relations. This discussion revolves mainly around the claim that I4.0 can be a breakthrough for the enterprises. Especially some prominent companies (like Siemens, Bosch, VW, Audi, Daimler) from certain sectors ask research institutions to prepare research reports regarding the concept I4.0. Although the intensity of the pro-corporate reports on the concept I4.0 in the literature is a distinctive feature, the number of critical analyses dealing with the logic of the concept are increasing gradually.
This study aims to be a part of the critical literature on I4.0. To this end, in the beginning, a brief information is given about the origin of the I4.0 debate within the context of digitalization. Next, the political economic logic lying behind the I4.0 debate is analyzed. The last part seeks the answers of the following questions such as what the potential outcomes of the forthcoming practices of I4.0 for workers are and if a countermovement can be built against the destructive impacts of technological progress on labor.
1.1 Digitalization and the concept I4.0
As it will be discussed below in detail, the I4.0 debate should be considered a sub-discussion theme of the ongoing digitalization process which have been experienced for 45 years across the world. It means that although the debate on digitalization is not new, some concepts and headings like artificial intelligence (AI), cyber physical systems (CPS) or I4.0 are newly introduced into the literature, and their outcomes are discussed in terms of redesigning production techniques and patterns. Thus, we are focusing on the concept I4.0 as one of the new sub-themes of the digitalization debate.
1.1.1 The methodology and research questions in brief
- Are the technological developments neutral in terms of social relations?
- Is there a strong tie between the capitalist development and the technological advancements?
- Will the novelties of I4.0 pave the way for a radical change in terms of the established socio-economic order?
- How can the I4.0 novelties can be analyzed within the context of Marxian political economy?
- How can the concept I4.0 be functionalized for the benefits of the working masses?
Although different questions whose answers are sought in this study deserve to be the components of more comprehensive inquiries separately, the reader should consider this study as an introductory opposition to the mainstream I4.0 debates.
1.1.2 The geographical and conceptual contours of I4.0
It should be emphasized that although there are numbers of different definitions regarding the “technology and work/technological progress and the world of labor” in different countries, this Eurocentric concept—I4.0—seems to be the most popular one that is used. The conceptual framework of I4.0 is drawn by German scholars Henning Kagermann, Wolf-Dieter Lukas and, Wolfgang Wahlster in 2011. According to Kagerman, Andrel, Gausemier, Schuh, and Wahlster (2016), p. 5), I4.0 denotes “the transformation of ‘the traditional’ industries by the Internet of Things, Data and Services.”
The flagship German companies and the institutions3 draw attention to the concept, and it is considered as one of the components of Germany's High-Tech Strategy Plan (Bartodziej, 2017). As mentioned above, the concept has been on the agenda since January 2011. Following the World Economic Forum held in Davos in 2016, the concept became known at the international level.
Since Germany seeks the ways of maintaining and improving its leading role in the world economy, its development strategy is based on improving technological investments. Bartodziej (2017), p. 30) gives insight into Germany's economic position with respect to other advanced capitalist countries and other EU countries. According to his assessments, Germany is in a leading position in terms of the share of value creation among all other EU countries. On the other hand, he also underlines that Germany is ranked fourth in terms of the share of GDP right after China, the US and Japan.
A remarkable number of research reports and policy papers on the concept I4.0 has been released since 2011. For example, the very first definition of the concept was made by the FU of Germany (the Communication Promoters Group of the Industry-Science Research Alliance) in 2011.
Another strategy document known as High Tech Strategy 2020—of Germany—, focuses on five areas related with the use of high technology in Germany. These areas are climate/energy, health/food, mobility, security, and communication (BMBF, 2014).
The report of Germany Trade and Invest (GTAI) is asking what I4.0 is. In addition to this, the meaning of the concept “Smart Industry” is also questioned in the mentioned report (MacDougall, 2014). According to MacDougall, “Industrie 4.0” refers to the coming fourth revolution having different components like Internet of Things, Data Services. On the other hand, he also states that I4.0 will connect “embedded system production technologies and smart production processes to pave the way for a new technological age which will radically transform industry and production value chains and business models (e.g. ‘smart factory’).” The concept Smart Factory is especially emphasized by MacDougall (2014), p. 10). According to his analysis, when smart factories are established, there will be a networked structure between virtual and physical worlds which will lead to the fusion of technical and business processes. The emergence of the cyber-physical systems is explained as a pioneering step giving birth to the smart factory (MacDougall, 2014, p. 10).
In addition to this, Price Waterhouse Coopers (Geissbauer, Vedso and Schrauf) emphasizes three different aspects of the concept I4.0. According to this definition, the first aspect of the concept is digitalization and integration of vertical and horizontal value chains. The second one is digitalization of product and service offerings. The third and the last one is digital business models and customer access (Geissbauer, Vedso and Schrauf 2016, p. 6).
Industry 4.0 (also addressed as the Industrial Internet) is a systemic change, bringing about extensive changes to the world of work.
With Industry 4.0, steps towards automation proceed more disruptively and with greater risk (acatech, 2015; Bauerhanls et al., 2014), and the spectrum of social challenges is correspondingly wide (cf. Hirsch-Kreisen et al., 2015). Industry 4.0 thus presents a qualitatively new challenge, even for companies who have had decades of experience with the introduction of new automation technology. (Pfeiffer, 2015, p. 5)
The study of Boston Consulting Group (the BCG), which analyzes the concept in detail, is considered as one of the most significant ones dealing with the concept (Bartodziej, 2017). This study has also been adapted by different business associations in different countries having different levels of capitalist development. The discourses of different business associations regarding the concept are similar in different countries. It means that the content and the context of I4.0 are accepted in similar terms by the business environments at the international level. This proves that the concept I4.0 has a profit-driven and pro-capitalist nature. If there is a unified discourse among the business circles from different countries, there is also a common benefit among them.
We know that the companies have a leading role in the I4.0 debate more than the governments or the public institutions, and we do not treat them identically. The corporate hegemony is the primary motive determining the directions of the policies (in a wide range of policies from the economic ones to the health services) under the capitalist state/government organizations. The companies are always one step ahead of the policy making and implementing processes as they already are in the I4.0 issue.
Especially, the companies that we mentioned above are acting as the playmakers of the I4.0 debate and the implementations. Although we can list the name of different companies which are engaged in the I4.0 debate and its practices here, we prefer focusing on the macro dimension of the issue.
When we focus on the geographical contours of the debate, it should not be forgotten that the conceptual aspects of the issue and its applicability can vary across different countries/regions. At this point a question can be asked if the context of the I4.0 debate which originated in Germany can be adapted for other geographies as well.
We can borrow the debate of Marx on concrete and abstract labor in order to give a response to this question. The roots of this debate are found in the Labor Theory of Value of Marx. As stated by Marx, when concrete labor creates the use value of commodities, abstract labor creates their exchange values. In the final analysis, all commodities produced in the market are involved in the exchange process through their abstract features which are significant for capitalists. In other words, we can adapt this theoretical debate to the question of generalizability of the I4.0 practices to different geographies of capitalism.
The distinctive innovativeness capacity of Germany and the vocational competencies of labor power in the country can be taken into account as the significant determinants which pave the way for creating exceptional use values through concrete labor. Thus, the produced use values transform into their abstracted forms in the sphere of exchange relations. At this point, we can state that all technological advancements are mobilized for creating exchange values. Since the point is to create exchange values through creating significant use values in capitalism, the I4.0 infrastructure can provide a privileged position for Germany. In addition to Germany, other advanced capitalist countries like the United States, Canada, the UK4 also try to produce exceptional use values which will be transformed into exchange values through I4.0 and similar technological infrastructures.
At this point, if we consider the I4.0 developments as the significant components of creating exchange values for Germany, we can state that these developments may be generalized for the countries (advanced capitalist countries like the USA, Canada, and the UK) which are in the same league with Germany. Since they have exceptional capacities of creating exchange values through exceptional use values, they can also initiate and use I4.0 like technological infrastructures.
On the other hand, the current developments reveal that Germany would maintain its unique characteristic in terms of creating exceptional use and exchange values through technological novelties (and skilled labor power) discussed under the heading of I4.0 for a certain period of time.
The notable exception is Germany, where there has been an important debate with engagement of social partners and policy makers on the implications of Industry 4.0 on work and employment, around the concept of “Arbeit 4.0”….
The digital novelties considered under the heading of I4.0 seem to bring more complicated outcomes in terms of employment and many other aspects in a-short/mid-term period in the USA (Kalleberg, 2018). For example, the rise of “bogus self-employment” through the digital platforms like Airbnb and Uber is discussed as a negative outcome of ongoing digitalized economy in the USA (Kalleberg, 2018, p. 520).
“Made-in-China 2025,” in addition to an action plan of “Internet Plus Industry,” has a broader scope on consolidating existing industries (Geissbauer, Vedso, & Schrauf, 2016), promoting diversity and broadening the range of various industries, enhancing regional cooperation (Lima, 2016), using Internet of Things to realize manufacturing without boundaries (Bi et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2012), innovating new products and improving product quality.
We have to recall the point mentioned above. Even if China puts various efforts to build its own digitalized economic development strategy, its position cannot be compared with core countries (especially with Germany) due to the obstacles in its innovativeness capacity and the limits in the creation of its own brands.5
After giving country-based concrete examples, we can keep on the debate at the abstract level of analysis. Actually, such conceptual discussions are always controlled by the circle/company/country they originate from for their own benefits. Since the original circle of the concept seeks to gain the utmost economic and political benefit, both the grand-narrative of the concept and its sub-components are designed in line with the current reality which is going on in the origin. In other words, since Germany has gained more ground than most of the countries in its league in terms of technological infrastructure, which has been integrated into production processes and the other parts of the social life, it also seeks to find a way to gain discursive dominance. Although there are some attempts of different conceptual developments6 in order to define the current technology related changes, the concept I4.0 is generally accepted at the international level. This condition recalls the assessments of Marx (2000), p. 21) in his work “The German Ideology” where he explains the ideas7 as the reflection of the material world controlled by the ruling class.
1.1.3 The thing told by the concept
Industry 4.0 does not involve simply automating already-established manufacturing routines but rather managing and forming the innovation process, which is itself open-ended and to some extent never fully plannable. At the same time, however, new technologies and their advantages have to be integrated into a more and more mass-customized, personalized production robustly and quickly. Even in the early phases, plant availability must not be endangered. (Pfeiffer, 2018, p. 221)
Wolter et al. (2015) analyze the concept I4.0 in terms of the horizontal integration of production. According to their approach, I4.0 denotes four production related transformations, which are called real time production, decentralized production, machine controlled production, and customized production (Wolter et al., 2015, p. 13). For example, within the context of real time production, the following production related issues turn out to be possible: These are “coordinating use/flow of materials specific to requirements, minimizing stock/production downtimes along the entire value chain, reduction of processing time/inventories, high utilization percentage” (Wolter et al., 2015, p. 3).
One of the key points about the concept I4.0 is that the concept is useless without its subcomponents. As an umbrella concept, I4.0 consists of different ongoing technological developments; the concrete technological novelties applied in different production processes embodying the discourse of I4.0. It means that integration and unified functioning of the technology-based practices in the production site generate the use of the concepts gathered under the general heading of I4.0. If we depart from the materialist understanding of the world, we can say that the concepts are produced after concrete developments. The technologies, which have already been materialized, introduce conceptual definition. Although the concept I4.0 is considered a futuristic approach which envisages the potential patterns of production for the next generation, it is based on the technologies whose practices can already be observed. The concepts of the future are being designed by today's materialized developments.
When we come back to review of I4.0 literature, we can see that Rüβman et al. (2015), pp. 3–4) discuss nine specific technological advancements within the context of I4.0. According to them, nine technologies are transforming industrial production.
- Autonomous Robots,
- Simulation
- Horizontal and vertical system integration,
- The Industrial Internet of Things,
- Cybersecurity,
- The cloud,
- Additive manufacturing,
- Augmented reality,
- Big data and analytics.
Each component listed above has a unique role enabling a safe and sound working system categorized under I4.0. For example, while the cloud is in charge of storing and saving the data, the industrial internet of things (IoT) connects the equipment and the machines to each other through the internet. The working principle of the components under the concept I4.0 is considered as if it was an organism. If the capitalist mode of production is configured as a body in need of the systemic working of all organs to maintain the existence of the organism, the concept I4.0 can be depicted as a crucial system, and its subcomponents are considered as the organs. In other words, the subcomponents of I4.0 can be utilized for the next generation partnership of technological advancement and capitalism. Each component of the concept must be taken into consideration within the context of the fundamental principles of capitalism. Each component has a unique characteristic contributing to the unified working of the whole system called I4.0, in terms of the next generation accumulation processes, working patterns and the organization of work.
Üstündağ et al. (2018, p. 5) emphasize that there is no absolute denominator to define the current technologies to initiate the transformation of I4.0. The concept is accepted as a combination of different production related areas and levels such as the integration of production facilities, supply chains and service systems to enable the establishment of value added networks.
In the center of Industry 4.0, the concept of a Smart Factory constitutes a key feature. According to experts, the Smart Factory has several novel characteristics, which makes enables companies to cope with complexity and unexpected disruptions as well as to manufacture products more efficiently. In a Smart Factory, people, machines, and resources communicate with each other as naturally as in a social network. Bartodziej (2017), p. 35)
Here, we can clarify the meaning of the concept I4.0. If we consider the issue from a technical point of view, we should underline that I4.0 is not a simple term referring to the robotization of production or the rise of the AI. Although I4.0 covers both the robotization of production and the rise of the AI, it goes beyond them through the internet infrastructure. Actually I4.0 refers to a complex and integrated infrastructure, which paves the way for simultaneous and coordinated processing of production through interconnected machines/robots and learning systems which are in different facilities of the company/producer in different locations of the World. As cited by Bartodziej (2017) above, smart systems is in the center of the I4.0 debate. The I4.0 implementations would give a chance to integrate the production strategies which have been enabled through the previous technological developments. These production strategies are mass production and customized production. As stated by Wahlster (2016), mass production and customized production would be integrated into a single body (called as mass-customization) through the I4.0 infrastructure. This aspect should be considered as the most distinctive feature of the concept I4.0.
If we go back to our analysis at the level of production relations, we can make a different assessment. Although the concept I4.0 and its subcomponents are novelties at the discursive level, different concepts were used to analyze the effects of technological changes on the manufacturing patterns and processes in the same way in the past. As we mentioned above, since the process of digitalization has been experienced for 40 years, we have an opportunity to recognize the components of I4.0. Actually, I4.0 refers to the redesign of the production process, which have already been in progress for decades in line with the most recent technological advancements.
At this point, we can state that there are two main models in the organization of work. The first one is called the Fordist organization of work/production and the other one is Toyotist or post-Fordist organization of work/production. These two models in the organization of work used the most developed technological infrastructure of their own eras. Besides, the mentioned models carried the current technological infrastructure one step further in favor of the valorization of capital. For example, Frederick Winslow Taylor's studies were conducted in order to decrease the unit production cost of the product. To this end, he used the current technological infrastructure through his knowledge of engineering. His studies became the predecessor of the development of the conveyor belt, which became the most important component of the automotive production firstly introduced in the plants of the Ford Company. From the beginning of the 20th century until 1970s, the Fordist organization of work preserved its dominance through the technological components and managerial techniques.
At this point, we can give more insight into the importance of “scientific management” for the capitalist accumulation. Technical and technological development are two key components to accelerate the speed of production and increase the quantity of products/services produced in a certain period of time. On the other hand, the accelerated speed of production and the increased quantity of commodities (products/service) are not the main aims in terms of capitalists. The technological and technical accumulation pinned on commodities are much more important than the quantity of commodities produced in a certain period of time. It means that more technological components used in the production of commodities could create opportunities for acquiring more exchange values. The principles of “scientific management” have always been important to make permanent the capitalist accumulation. Even if its name has changed over the course of time, the impacts of “scientific management” have been experienced in different phases of the capitalist accumulation from designing of a workplace to installing brand-new machinery. For this reason, the I4.0 debate should also be considered in the context of “the functionalization of the technological and technical accumulation for the sake of the capitalist accumulation.”
The falling tendency of the rate of profits and the other bottlenecks (like the 1973 Oil Crisis etc.) affecting the regular working mechanisms of the capitalist mode of production brought about the introduction of the new methods and techniques for a new breakthrough. The rise of the Toyotist/post-Fordist organization of work took place under such circumstances. The first phases of robotization in the industrial production in the contemporary sense go back to early 1970s. This brought the rise of all kind of flexible work organizations and production patterns. Actually, technological infrastructure and the current needs of the capitalist mode of production accelerated the introduction of such transformations. As mentioned above, all technological and managerial steps were in favor of capitalism. From the invention of the conveyor belt to time-and-motion laws; from the just in time production to the customized products, all of them are functionalized for the sake of a “holy” objective. This is the perpetuity of the valorization of capital.
We should also consider that there would be more comprehensive impacts of the I4.0 novelties in the social life. While the significant part of the discussions is revolving around the transformation of production processes, we cannot deny that there are different discussions underlining what the I4.0 implementations can introduce in the field of medicine, civil engineering and some other fields. Although some debates on the concept I4.0 are associated with a philanthropic perspective, they would be used for the benefit of the companies. For example, the advancements in the bio-medical equipment technology related with I4.0 would facilitate surgeries, but these operations would be available for a very limited group of people, who are able to afford it economically and technologically. Due to the privatization of healthcare services and other neoliberal policies, the mentioned developments would be inaccessible for the rest of the world. This fact proves that the novelties introduced through I4.0 should be freed from the hegemony of capitalism, if a just world would be established.
1.1.4 Sectoral reflections of I4.0 at a glance
As underlined above, although this study does not aim to give insight into the sectoral reflections of I4.0 in detail, pointing out some examples from different sectors would be useful for readers, who are keen on seeing what the concrete dimensions of this conceptual debate are in brief.
We can divide the sectoral reflections of the I4.0 practices into two main parts as tangible and intangible commodity production processes (Imran, Hameed, & Haque, 2018). Herein, we can claim that the I4.0 practices can be considered as two different mix of technologies. The first one can be called as “the mix which is composed of the relatively old8 and brand-new technologies.9” The reflections of this mix can be seen in various sectors based on traditional tangible commodity production such as automotive, durable house goods, their supporting sectors and others. If we take the automotive sector into account, we can state that the infrastructure based on the abovementioned relatively old and brand-new technologies are mobilized for the production processes. As relatively old technologies, CAD/CAM implementations are used together with the brand-new ones like IoT and augment reality, which are the components of I4.0. This combination should be considered as a method aiming to facilitate and accelerate the production speed and enhance the production capacity by giving instant and rapid responses to the needs of customers/markets. Thus, this combination brings a new dimension to flexible and mass customization.
The second mix of technologies can be considered as the composition of completely brand-new technologies. The examples of this mix can be seen in a various sectors like retail, banking, and entertainment. For example, the data collection through new technologies of I4.0 is a significant and intensifying practice in the retail-sector. IoT, big data, AI all of these technologies can be considered brand-new technologies used within the scope of the I4.0 practices.
The other point, which should be recalled here is the differentiation of the I4.0 practices across sectors and countries. As mentioned above, the I4.0 practices should be considered with a perspective focusing both on sectoral and national differentiations. For example, while the main plant of a global company located in a developed country can be a good example for observing the I4.0 practices on site, the plant of this company located in an underdeveloped country can display quite different characteristics from the plant located in a developed country in terms of the mentioned I4.0 practices. Since we do not intend to make an in-depth analysis of sectoral practices of I4.0, we stop here and continue with the critical analysis of the concept within the context of the revolution-evolution dilemma.
1.1.5 The revolution-evolution dilemma of I4.0
Should I4.0 be considered as an evolution or a revolution? The answer of this question is sought in a part of the literature on the I4.0 debate. We can underline that there are different approaches to the question of whether I4.0 is an evolution or a revolution. For example, when Cirillo, Evangelista, Guarascio, and Sostero (2019) considers the debate as a paradigmatic change, Fuchs (2018) assesses the debate as a new ideological attack of the bourgeois to the working class.10
In this context, we can underline that I4.0 can be considered as a specific name and heading for the next generation hegemonic strategy of ideological and practical class strategy to maintain the established hegemonic relations ruled by the bourgeoisie. The reader can find more insight regarding this issue below.
Schroeder (2016) defends that I4.0 is an evolutionary implementation rather than a revolutionary idea. Thus, it can be underlined that there is no comprise how the I4.0 debate should be interpreted in terms of revolution-evolution distinction. We introduce our own analysis based on this distinction below.
First, it can be underlined that technological changes should be considered as gradual processes having radical ruptures or steady transformations in themselves. For example Dicken (2015), p. 76) assesses the technological change through four different phases, which are “incremental innovations, radical innovations, changes of technology system, and changes in the techno-economic paradigm.” The phase named “change in the techno-economic paradigm” contains all the components of the others called “incremental innovations, radical innovations and changes of technology.” At first, “change in the techno economic paradigm” can look like a revolutionary breakthrough transforming all the established patterns completely, however it is the outcome of an evolutionary process developing incrementally and gradually. If we categorize the concept I4.0 as a “change in the techno-economic paradigm,” we should consider that it is the outcome of an evolutionary process as well.
Actually, we can consider the discussed changes in relation to the connection between the technological advancements and capitalism in this regard. The Long Wave Theory of Nikolai Kondratieff can be described as an approach discussing the relation between the technological development and capitalism in an evolutionary process rather than a revolutionary one. According to his analysis, technological advancements follow a gradual hyperbolic path with different phases. While the first phase of the first wave —which is called “K1”— was not denoted, the following phases are named as prosperity, recession, depression and recovery (Dicken, 2015, p. 78). Interconnected and transitory characteristic of each consecutive wave proves that the mentioned process has an evolutionary feature. Dicken underlines that we are experiencing the fifth stage of long waves, in which there is digitalization, information and communication technologies and computerization of the entire economy (Dicken, 2015, p. 78, Atkinson, 2018, p. 105). According to this perspective, we discuss the issues like I4.0 in the fifth stage of long wave, whose exact period is uncertain. Maybe it would last fifty or more than fifty years.
Since we cannot assert that there is a certain/absolute disengagement while passing from one wave to the other one, this is an evolution. The technological novelties immanent in capitalist development follow a gradual development rather than showing absolute disruptive characteristics. On the other hand, there are lots of assessments considering the technological developments as revolutionary steps, which change all the structure. In the significant part of the assessment reports released by the corporations, the concept I4.0 is defined as a revolutionary breakthrough with an extreme transformative capacity on the established production processes of all kinds of goods and services. Those who attribute a “revolutionary meaning” to it, assume that the concept I4.0 has a disruptive capacity in terms of production relations and whole social life. Another assumption about the concept I4.0 takes it for granted that the practices within the context of the concept pave the way for an exceptional advancement going beyond all the socio-economic advancements that have taken place. These assessments are also associated with the idea that I4.0 has a revolutionary meaning.
Besides, after reviewing the literature, we can understand that the concept I4.0 is used in favor of the conventional cost cutting practices, which have already been used in the previous stages of capitalism. For example, in the booklet of the PWC (2016), the concept I4.0 is analyzed. This survey-based booklet assesses how the concept I4.0 should be grasped and applied in favor of production processes. The booklet, in which different sectoral analyses are made, reveals that over the course of time, different digital skills will be required to proceed different patterns of production. On the other hand, the relations between the profitability of the companies from different sectors and their digitalized production processes are also analyzed in the same booklet (Geissbauer et al., 2016). The other report prepared by Rüβmann et al. (2016) describes what the contribution of the concept of I4.0 to the manufacturing industries is as well. Both of these reports reflect the perspectives of employers about the concept.
Maybe, the cutting-edge developments considered as “revolution” within the context of I4.0 debate are introduction of the technologies facilitating the integrative functioning of the machines and those enabling the human-machine interaction. These technologies are industrial IoT, AI, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR). Even though these are introduced as the cutting-edge technologies, which would provide new opportunities for the companies in terms of the improvement of the production substructure and increasing productivity, they are not affective in the ownership of the means of production. It means that the capitalist mode of production would enforce itself through these technologies.
Here, we can state that the advocates of the idea that I4.0 is a revolution care only about the political and economic dimensions of the debate rather than its technical aspects. It means that the technological novelties are considered as the apparatuses, accelerating and intensifying the economic and political hegemony over people especially. In other words, the reason this notion is considered by capital owners is to gain new privileges or maintain the existing ones through the technological novelties materialized by I4.0 practices. The revolution lays emphasis on the idea that I4.0 can be conceived as a strategic manipulation of capitalism whose objective is to create a misconception about the intrinsic working mechanisms of the system. This manipulation has a potential to create false-consciousness on the masses as if the established working mechanism of the capitalist mode of production was overthrown through the I4.0 “revolution.”
The point is whether there is a significant change in the basic working principle of capitalism grounded on the antagonism between labor and capital. Due to this fact, taking the concept I4.0 as a revolution is incorrect in terms of political economy. Defining this debate as an evolutionary process seems to be more accurate in this sense.
1.2 The political economy of technological Progress within the context of I4.0
Capitalism is capitalism regardless of all the labels pinned on it. It has its own fundamental working principles. Throughout its historical development, capitalism and technology have always been side by side. Although capitalism has been transforming for hundreds of years, the basic principles are still working on the background. The contradiction between labor and capital is not over yet. As a socio economic system based on the exploitation of labor and maintaining the valorization process, capitalism always seeks to find ways of self-expansion. To this end, some components such as the improvement of technological infrastructure and the skilling of labor power are used.
Regardless of a person's education or training level, if one does not have any other source of income except working in the labor market, she or he—more or less—is exposed to different forms of exploitation, which is in the nature of the capitalist mode of production. One can build a skyscraper or be engaged in the designing of an architectural infrastructure of a software. It does not matter. In every case, one has a duty to fulfill, which is the reproduction of the established socio-economic order. Of course, as an information and communication technologies (ICT) specialist or a construction worker, there are absolute differences of educational level, working conditions, life styles and perceptions of life. Although the lives of these “hypothetic people” would never intersect under non-revolutionary conditions, they might have common problems such as the risk of unemployment, precariousness, OHS risks, etc. arising from the established order.
Mystification and mythologizing of technology are two strategies hiding the reality behind the production relations and the risks mentioned above. The pro-corporate literature on I4.0 cherishes the recent technological developments without any questioning.
At this point, we can assess what the relation between the concept I4.0 and capitalism is. This relation should be considered as the new phase of techno-capitalistic order (Suarez-Villa, 2012, p. 44). As in the previous stages of capitalism, the debate on I4.0 would also serve the perpetual valorization of capital. Thus the concept I4.0 should be considered in relation to this valorization process, the circuits of capital, living labor-dead labor dialectic and the composition of capital.
From the dead labor, which defines the labor power invested into the means of production previously, to the living labor, which is used in the current production, the costs in each production component are aimed to be decreased through the I4.0 implementations. The decrease of the living labor proportion is advantageous for capitalists. During his analysis of the general law of capitalist accumulation, Marx makes a distinction between the compositions of capital which are the value composition and the technical composition. The value composition refers to the relation between the fixed and variable capital. The value composition is calculated by dividing fixed capital into variable capital. Fixed capital means the capital preserved by investment into the means of production, equipment and, raw material. Investment into labor power means variable capital. The technical composition means the ration between the mass of the means of production and labor power. The value and the technical compositions of capital are in a reciprocal relation. The value composition of capital is also called the organic composition of capital by Marx (Marxist Internet Archive Encyclopedia, https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/r.htm).
The intensification of technical composition means the intensification of the value composition of capital as well. An augmentation in the mass of the means of production through technological advancements and steadiness of the capital reserved for labor power or its gradual increase accelerates the capital accumulation process. This case assists the expansion of the organic composition of capital and the capitalist development. In short, technological advancements intensify the capitalist accumulation, and the forthcoming practices of I4.0 should be regarded in this respect (Marxist Internet Archive Encyclopedia, https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/r.htm).
In his work Grundrisse, Marx (2015a) underlines the importance of technological progress in terms of capitalism. In the famous part of Grundrisse called “The Fragment on Machines,” Marx makes a comparison between the labor time spent on production and the use of technology accelerating the production process. He (Marx, 2015a, p. 624) emphasizes that if a large industry emerges, it can happen through the predominant use of scientific and technological developments and their implementations in the field of production. Whilst Marx underlines the importance of the technological progress in the development of capitalism, he also states that the machinery produced for the capitalist development is the outputs of human labor as well. Actually, Marx explains the inner-conflicts of capitalism. The system, which is in need of more labor with an enhanced creative capacity (like IT specialist, researchers, engineers, artists), always seeks to limit the share of the labor used in all kinds of commodity processes. From AI to autonomous industrial/non-industrial robots, from big data to machine learning, all of them are designed as the components of I4.0 infrastructure, which would facilitate the replacement of living labor/human labor with high-tech hardware and software in the medium or long term. In other words, creative forms of labor are used to limit less or non-creative forms of labor used in the production processes. Thus, these creative forms of labor would also become unnecessary for capitalism in the final analysis. In other words, the enhancement in the creative and qualitative capacity will not be an absolute savior of laborers having exceptional skills against the potential gale of unemployment.
As mentioned above, all technological innovations and attempts (of course I4.0 as well) of the capital owners target to reduce the share of the capital reserved for workers. As Mandel (1990), p. 15) underlined, using a technological infrastructure which is higher11 than rival companies/other capital owners, is an advantage for that capital owner/company or the country hosting that company, in the classical Marxist sense.
Although the I4.0 components can be interpreted as the pillars having a target more than increasing the organic composition of capital, we can assert that the most primitive aim lying behind the rise of I4.0 debate is related to the labor-saving attempts through technological progress (Mandel, 1990, p. 27).
Fast accumulation is … a distinctive feature of this new version of capitalism. Only through fast accumulation can the fundamental resources of technocapitalism be tapped and commodified. Through them, corporate power appropriates the intangible resources that are a hallmark of this new stage of capitalism. Fast accumulation thus makes it possible for the technocapitalist corporation to commodify the most valuable resource of this new era, creativity. Attaining power and profit through this elusive social and human quality around the globe is its most important objective.
Fast accumulation is therefore essential for the globalization of technocapitalism and its corporate interests. Much as the manufacturing corporations of industrial capitalism appropriated the tangible resources upon which production depended, so the corporations of technocapitalism appropriate the intangible resources needed to obtain power and profit. As industrial capitalism extended its reach around the globe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, so technocapitalism seems poised to leave its mark (and pathologies) in every corner of the globe, no matter how remote or unprepared a society might be for its onslaught. (Suarez-Villa, 2012, p. 43)
Techno-capitalism seems to be a fitting concept to define the current relation between technology and capitalism. On the verge of full-automation and the formation of smart factories, all the steps are taken in favor of the established socio-economic order. The concept I4.0 can also be assessed within the discourse of techno-capitalism. Thus, I4.0 contains different components such as full automation of the production process and the utilization of the creative/intellectual labor as goods or services. At this point, we can attribute another meaning to I4.0. Therefore, it means, commodification of all technological advancements and labor for the expropriation of the wealth produced. For example, Suarez-Villa (2009), p. 33) underlines that the commodification of intellectual labor could be the “source of alienation for those who exercise creativity.” When I4.0 is concerned, having creativity and multitasking abilities to maintain the production processes are crucial for companies. Regardless of the features of the product as goods or services, the creative capacity of living labor —which has to be transferred into the machinery or the commodities— causes a new form of dependency to the market for workers.
As Suarez-Villa underlined, the ways in which semi-skilled, skilled manual and intellectual labor power components were located at the center of the working patterns and production relations of the 20th century's capitalism is similar to how super skilled labor power components are mobilized for the benefits of the current digital form of capitalism today. The rise of the creative capacity of living labor and the production of intangible/immaterial commodities (like data) should be taken into account in the context of the I4.0 debate and the concept of techno-capitalism of Suarez-Villa.
As stated in the previous sentence, technological infrastructure and the creative capacity are two factors that pave the way for the sound and safe working of the digital form of capitalism. In other words, the immaterial commodities like data, online contents, software and other similar forms of commodities have key roles in the perpetual valorization of capital in our age. Thus, we can underline that the labor power, which has exceptional creative skills, uses all components of technological infrastructure discussed under I4.0.
The combination of the technological infrastructure and the labor power having exceptional creative skills would bring negative outcomes for the interests of the laboring masses in the long run. Under the capitalist mode of production, since laborers do not have the option of resisting against continuous demands of employers like skill gaining, re-skilling and upskilling, they would surrender to the market hegemony sooner or later.
The increase of labor creativity along with the technological advancements causes a gradual subsumption of labor to the market hegemony.13 The commodification process of intellectual labor is accelerated and facilitated by the enhancement of technological infrastructure. The developments within the context of the I4.0 debate have potential to take the same role today. On the one hand, the practices of I4.0 can create a new gale of unemployment for the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. On the other hand, the pressure on the skilled workers can intensify with employability, working conditions and social rights. At this point, we should question how the prospective practices of the concept I4.0 take place in different geographies of capitalism.
The uneven and combined development patterns of the international capitalist system have a potential to create the new forms of inequalities which have already been created for decades by the system itself. This uneven and combined development immanent in the international capitalist socio-economic relations, is one of the factors affecting the inequalities between the countries having different socio-economic development levels.
As we mentioned above, the concept I4.0 is used by the corporations and the governments in order to veil/cover the new forms of valorization and exploitation. Actually, the issue of exploitation in the age of digitalization and robotization is one of the most controversial issues. Exploitation defines one of the basic characteristics of the capitalist mode of production. The current debates on the issue of exploitation carried by the autonomous and neo-Marxist circles vary in a broader spectrum. The discourse that includes the idea that “the workplace is everywhere, thus the exploitation is spreading everywhere” is supported by the Autonomous Marxist thinkers such as Negri and Hardt. The same subject is also questioned in terms of the characteristics of the value (whether it is exchange value or use value) created in social media and other digitalized platforms such as Uber and Airbnb. For example, Christian Fuchs (2015) analyzes the exploitation in the social media. His analysis also gives insight into the contemporary forms of value creation, the productive or the unproductive forms of labor which are basically discussed in the Capital (Fuchs, 2015).
In terms of capitalism, enabling a production pattern, which contains a limited number of super-skilled workers and the machinery with the latest technology, is crucial. Since the point is not to produce excessive amount of commodities, one should not focus on the amount of commodities. The commodities, produced with high-tech infrastructure and with the labor of very-skilled workers, are more functional in creating a greater value. The potential practices of I4.0 could pave the way for the creation of mass commodities holding greater values with their masses.The technical and social conditions of the process, and consequently the very mode of production must be revolutionized, before the productiveness of labor can be increased. By that means alone can the value of labor-power be made to sink, and the portion of the working day necessary for the reproduction of that value, be shortened. (Marx, 2015b, p. 221)
Big Data Capitalism requires that we assess how thought systems, forms of knowledge, political economy, governmentalities, materialities, infrastructures, practices, organizations, institutions, subjectivities, spaces (Kitchin, 2014, p. 25), temporalities, and discourses and ideologies are changing.
Fuchs (2019), pp. 58–59) lays emphasis on the transformative capacity of “big data capitalism” and algorithmic power on the world. He also underlines that this capacity can transform the world into a “huge shopping mall in which humans are targeted by ads almost everywhere, and where commercial logic colonizes society.” It means that, as one of the components of I4.0, big data would create an impact on the whole society both as the apparatus of control and direction. Another remarkable issue regarding the rise of data production and its pervasiveness in different fields is associated with the computerization of life and the loss of its qualitative aspects. In other words, daily life that is controlled through data collection and taxonomy processes, loses its unique and authentic features, and becomes a standardized numeric controlled unity of movements. The collected data becomes an instrument of the collectors (like states, intelligence services, companies) who intend to control the lives of masses. If we consider the importance of data production and collection process, we should emphasize that I4.0 goes beyond a hegemonic discourse just aiming to control the sphere of production relations. I4.0 refers to the whole comprehensive “techno-hegemonic” discourse and practices targeting absolute oppression over the society through its different pillars like AI, big data, smart factories and the abovementioned others.
1.3 The debates on technological unemployment and the working class
Core capitalist countries seek the ways of benefiting from the advantages of digital transformation. When core countries design the new opportunities of digital production systems, they also try to find the ways of mitigating the potential adverse effects of the I4.0 practices on their labor market. For example, the vocational training and lifelong learning programs are proposed by the German institutions and the scholars as two functional tools to prevent the mentioned adverse effects. For instance, in the working papers released by different German Institutions such as the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS), the Federal Institute of Vocational Training (BIBB), and the Institute for Labor Market Research (IAB), intensifying vocational training and lifelong learning in the field of digital technologies are proposed as functional tools for a just transition to the I4.0 practices. According to the findings of Pfeiffer's (2018) study, dual education system—which integrates academic education and vocational training—is a functional method to decrease the adverse effects within German labor market. On the other hand, Pfeiffer (2018), p. 220) points out that these findings should be considered just in terms of the German case with unique characteristics. Except for Germany-based assessments, the international studies are not as certain as the positive relation between vocational training and the employability capacity under the current technological changes. In the study prepared by the EESC (European Economic and Social Committee), the relation between the new technologies and the new job opportunities should be taken into account. According to the findings of this study, “there is a very limited information available on the number of new jobs created with the new technologies” (EESC, 2017, p. 14).
The new technologies bringing new job opportunities require new skills.
These new technologies are supposed to create a capacity to bring a series of qualitative transformation for the skills of labor. As mentioned below, the change in the qualitative capacity of labor power can create an impact on the employments patterns of workers. It means that the workers, who have unique doing work capacities with regard to “non-routinized” mental tasks, can be luckier than others in terms of employability. Although skill gaining and qualification enhancement attempts provide opportunity for a group of people to stay within a limited group of labor force, the researches reveal that a significant number of workers would be replaced with the technologies within the context of I4.0 to a certain extent. For example, Van der Zaande, Teigland, Siri, and Teigland (2018), p. 37) underline that regardless of cognitive, manual, routine or non-routine features, the people doing different tasks will be replaced with new technologies. The schedule covering the findings of a filed study conducted by Manyika et al. (2017) is cited by Van der Zaande et al. (2018), p. 37):
| Cognitive | Manual | |
|---|---|---|
Routine |
Primary required capabilities Retrieving information Recognizing known patterns Optimizing and planning Logical reasoning problem solving Natural language processing Sample tasks Data processing tasks, for example, calculating And bookkeeping Customer service tasks by for example, cashiers, telephone operators, bank tellers Predicted substitution rate: 64–69% |
Primary required capabilities Gross and fine motor skills Sensory perception Mobility to some extent Sample tasks Assembling Picking and sorting Welding Cooking Predicted substitution rate: 81% |
Non-routine |
Primary required capabilities Creativity Logical reasoning/problem solving Generating novel patterns Coordinating with multiple agents Natural langue processing Social and emotional capabilities Sample tasks Legal writing Negotiating Teaching Diagnosing diseases Predicted substitution rate: ˂20% |
Primary required capabilities Fine and gross motor skills Sensory perception Social and emotional capabilities Natural language processing Navigation Mobility Sample tasks Operating a crane Assisting with surgery Janitorial work Making hotel beds Predicted substitution rate: 26% |
Resource: Van der Zaande et al. (2018): As cited in Manyika et al., 2017).
Here, we can state that skill gaining is not an easy process for workers. Actually it is a dilemma for workers. On the one hand, upskilling, reskilling, lifelong learning are imposed as the means of employability; on the other hand education and training opportunities shrink for the significant segments of the working class working in different sectors and living in different regions of the world rapidly. The prospective digital transformation within the context of I4.0 would increase the pressure on workers during this process of skill gaining and perpetual self-renovation to be engaged in employment. Although vocational training and lifelong learning programs are offered as remedies to mitigate the potential deteriorative outcomes of the I4.0 practices of core countries, it is doubtful whether these sort of projects can be functional programs in semi periphery and periphery countries.
At this point, we should consider the issue of technology transfer between the core and, the semi peripheries or the peripheries of the world. The technology transfer among the countries should be considered in two respects, the first maintaining dependency and the second preventing an absolute lagging behind the ongoing technological development. This is one of the main characteristics of dependency relation. Semi periphery and periphery countries suffering from lack of technological infrastructure, skilled labor power and capital accumulation, have a more fragile position within the I4.0 practices. As mentioned above, this uneven condition is not a new problem. While there are doubts concerning semi periphery countries' adaptation of the I4.0 practices to their production processes, the lag of periphery countries is an absolute truth.
This lag intensifies the problems of periphery countries in terms of international competitiveness and the adaptation of their labor markets to the new practices of I4.0. The other potential problem for periphery countries is the issue of an increased fragility and precariousness of the labor markets through the robotization and digitalization of the production processes. Thus, the point is focusing on what is to be done by the workers of the world to prevent the potential adverse effects of the I4.0 implementations on the rights of labor and working conditions.
There are different analyses regarding the potential job losses and technological progress (the I4.0 debate as discussed in this study) relation in the literature. We can categorize these analyses as micro and macro ones. While the micro analyses are revolving around a much more econometrics model, the macro ones are focusing on the socio-political dimensions of the issue.
At first, we can focus on the analyses in the literature dealing with how the potential job destructor effects of technological change can be mitigated. There are different analyses underlining the importance of skills and tasks. The disparity between skills and labor markets is one of the focal points discussed within the context of technological development and composition of the workforce and skills (Lovergine & Pellero, 2018, p. 71).
In addition to SBTC hypothesis of Acemoglu and Autor (2010), Goos, Manning, and Salomons (2014) propose their hypothesis called routine-biased technological change (RBTC) asserting technological change will terminate routine tasks regardless of their manual or intellectual forms.tasks between people and machines is fluid and the new tasks are often assigned first to workers, because they are flexible and adaptable. These tasks are routinized and codified. New process technologies can make certain activities provided by workers redundant, while increasing the value and usefulness of others (problem solving, intuition, creativity, etc.) to increase productivity.
The central question regarding the link between non-routine work and Industry 4.0 is thus not: Which tasks potentially could be lost to automation tomorrow? The more relevant question is instead: How can the specific potential of living labor be used and recognized for the formation of Industry 4.0 today? (Pfeiffer, 2018, p. 221)
In other words, Pfeiffer underlines that skill gaining of workers can be a shield against unemployment. This approach seems to be functional to prevent dramatic job losses due to the I4.0 practices, however it cannot be tailored to all geographies of capitalism, as Pfeiffer denoted. There are some promising analyses underlining that the potential job losses could be less than it is supposed to be. With regard to practices categorized under the general framework of I4.0, we can underline that they would materialize and can be considered as the eve of a new oppressive era for all waged-laborers who have to be in labor market to survive. These changes seem to create unpredictable effects on the living and employment conditions of workers living and working in semi peripheries and peripheries of the world, especially. The point is to find the ways of using technology in favor of all humanity rather than the corporations.
The first approach mentioned above can be summarized as a more optimistic one anticipating that skill gaining or task variating attempts would be remedies for job destructive impacts of technological progress.
By the way, the corporations defend that the I4.0 practices will create a demand for the skilled labor, especially in the field of ICT/IT. In other words, while the mechanized works, formerly performed by the unskilled or semi-skilled blue collared workers, are gradually becoming obsolete, the need for labor to manage complex tasks will rise in decades. According to this scenario, in the forthcoming years, labor power would be selected among the high-skilled people educated or trained in the field of ICT and the ICT related tasks. The defenders of this optimistic scenario anticipate that in parallel with the I4.0 practices, the job opportunities would increase. Although this optimistic scenario may materialize in the leading countries of the world capitalism, the rest of the world could face the pessimistic scenario.
The second approach regarding the relation between I4.0 and the labor markets can be considered as a more pessimistic one. For example, Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014) underline that the ongoing process will deepen the inequalities both between corporations and workers themselves. In terms of corporations, while the gains are boosting for companies having mastery over the creation of new technologies, the others will shrink or extinct completely. Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), p. 81) emphasize that technological progress is affecting the winners and losers of a group of people having different levels of technical and occupational skills. According to them, technological progress is also determining the ways of creating national income which “is divided between the owners of physical capital and labor (people like factory owners and factory workers).” Their analysis focusing on the US underlines the gap between people with and without college education. The most significant part of their analysis is the determination of the great gaps among the people with college education. A group of “super talented” people (they are a very small group) working in the ICT sector earn gigantic incomes. Besides, the reports prepared by the international institutions and trade union organizations like the ILO (2019), the IndustriALL (2017) and the IG Metall (2019) reveal that the potential outcomes of the I4.0 implementations have the capacity to affect the labor markets of certain sectors negatively. The trade union organizations would cope with severer problems such as loss of members in the near future. If they do not adopt a new organizing strategy covering the new sectors within I4.0, they will not be able to convince the next generation labor power to get organized. The trade unions organized among the unskilled and semiskilled workers for decades, continue to lose their efficiency. Since the potential outcomes of the I4.0 practices may not leave room for unskilled or semiskilled workers in the labor market, the next generation labor power needs to be high-skilled. The gradual digitalization of standardized tasks performed by the unskilled or semiskilled workers previously would set the bar higher in terms of employment requirements. Thus the new technology based job opportunities would demand a higher number of skilled workers who are not adequate enough to meet the demand of the market, currently.
The unionists should keep in mind that their tasks get harder in terms of organization. The labor relations of the next generation are changing gradually both in terms of workers' quality and the tasks performed by the new type of workers. Since the trade unions have not been able to cover these long-standing changes, they have been losing their natural membership base and have not been able to respond to the novelties. Trade unions should analyze what the outcomes of digitalization in the production processes are. The digitalization process is not free from problems for the workers all over the world. As we underlined above, different geographies of labor will be affected by this process at different levels. On the other hand, the international trade union organizations should adopt not only a unified but also customized strategies focusing on the regional and national cases, to mitigate the prospective adverse effects of the digitalization process.
2 CONCLUSION
Although there are significant changes in the production techniques and methods through technological novelties, the logic of capitalist accumulation maintains its own most primitive form. In other words, the aim to nullify the cost of variable capital/living labor have been the basis for all kinds of technological developments which have been invented under the capitalist mode of production for 100 years. It is the primary point to be considered in the analyses of the relation between technological progress and capitalism. Of course, the transformation of labor process, the changing methods of doing business, metamorphosing consumerism patterns and other themes are as important as the abovementioned issue as well. To sum up, all debates on technological progress, the digitalization process and the concept I4.0 are the parts of a comprehensive strategy in order to build the next generation working principles of the capitalist mode of production.
On the other hand, we should consider that there might also be counter movements against this strategy of the bourgeois. Today, in order to prevent “the hostility of machinery and technological progress targeting the worker,”14 new struggling methods could be sought. Although there are different policy proposals to mitigate the negative impacts of technological progress (specifically in I4.0 context) on labor in the literature, a significant part of them is far from a sound determination of the problem. The logic of technological progress, which is subsumed under capitalism, is to make the valorization of capital permanent through increased technological investments.
Individualized or training-centered policy proposals cannot be remedies for potential I4.0 related problems which will be experienced by labor. At a global level, the negative effects of the forthcoming technological changes cannot be prevented through the skill gaining programs or non-routinization of tasks. For example, in the Global Commission Report of ILO (2019), increasing the capabilities of humans is defended as one of the remedies to mitigate the adverse effects of digitalization on labor. We must frankly state that this kind of proposals could be functional only for a limited group of workers, and it cannot be a cure for the structural questions rising from capitalism.
The potential technological unemployment cannot be considered as the result of skill insufficiency of workers or those performing the manual or intellectual routinized tasks. Thus trade unions and other pro-labor organizations should consider the I4.0 debate and its initial implementations as new and common strategy of the capitalist block located in different countries of the world. In terms of labor, the potential negative effects of the I4.0 implementations can be much severer than imagined. Although the sections of the working class in core capitalist countries seem to have more possibilities to overcome the negative effects of I4.0, the workers of semi peripheries or peripheries have less chance.
Today, trade unions are more important than ever as we face a new and drastic industrial transformation—they are crucial players to manage the socio-economic and political change. Otherwise, the benefits of Industry 4.0 will flow entirely to employers and owners of capital; not to workers, and political instability will be the result—a result already in play in some regions as their pathway to full development becomes restricted or blocked. (IndustriALL, 2017, p. 32)
is important for not only what it brings to workers in Germany today but what it says about the country's labor relations system and how it will facilitate needed transitions responding to increased automation and improved technology. As stated by Feingold (2018), Germany gives more room for trade unions, which are considered as the representative organizations of workers. She underlines that the agreement signed by IG Metall should be considered as a prototype model for trade unions to “address technological change at the bargaining table and prioritizes shorter working hours and a better work life balance.
In contrast with the case of Germany, the US employers display a more adversarial position against trade unions, and the relation between them is more uneven. This situation makes it “difficult to develop solutions that address technological change while supporting workers' interest in the workplace” (Feingold, 2018). In other words, the power of the US trade unions are weaker than their German counterparts. The US labor relations system is less cooperative as well. These are the factors creating doubts about the struggling capacity of the US trade unions against the negative impacts of automation and improved technology on workers (Feingold, 2018). The comparison mentioned above proves that a stronger labor relation structure covering powerful trade unions and their collective-bargaining agreement capacity can be a protective shield against the negative impacts of technological developments like automation discussed under I4.0 on workers.
Actually, the point is not being or standing against the technological developments. The point is to stand against the logic of the profit driven nature of capitalism and finding ways of functionalizing technological progress for the sake of all humanity rather than holding an “anti-technologist” position. The current COVID-19 pandemic proves that the use of technologies for the benefit of all humanity rather than a happy few who consider themselves to be the rulers of the world, is our primary necessity. Although there are attempts of developing new technologies like mobilizing AI for the attempts to develop a cure for the disease and using service robots to support the healthcare workers who are getting in touch with the infected people directly we can say that these attempts do not suffice. If the investments for the I4.0 infrastructure had been more human-centered, the number of casualties among the healthcare workers who are struggling against the COVID-19 pandemic could have been less than the actual figures. If the current rules of the game are kept on, the global social problems will deepen in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The human-centered use of technological infrastructure and the socialization of wealth created through technological innovations are two significant issues for the next generation working class struggle to find a permanent solution against the exploiting and alienating nature of free market economy.
ENDNOTES
- 1 This study discusses the process of digitalization and I4.0 debate at the level of countries. It states that the cross-country inequalities are the most important factors affecting the uneven development of capitalism at the global/international level. The readers will see two other “analysis levels” like “economies” and “the ruling classes of countries” except from “countries” in the text. Since capitalism is organized at the level of countries, they have their own ruling classes. Of course, these ruling classes are not homogenous bodies, they have different segments in themselves as well. These ruling classes control the economic and political powers within the borders of their countries, and they try to expand their powers at the global level. Since the hegemonic positions of the ruling classes of countries should not be overlooked, we prefer to use the mentioned three expressions (countries/economies and the ruling classes) in the study alternately.
- 2 Although the history of this relations dates back to the earlier times, we are taking the rise of textile industry as a departure point for this study.
- 3 Like Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS-Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales), Federal Institute for Vocational Training (BIBB-Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung), Federal Institute for Employment Research (IAB-Institut für Arbeitsmarkt und Berufsforschung), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF-Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung).
- 4 Rahner and Schönstein (2018), p. 371) underline that the debates on digitalization are common in Germany and Anglo-Saxon countries.
- 5 On the other hand, the recent developments across the world can cause a remarkable transformations in the world system. It means, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could introduce a potential to change the balance of power between the countries in the world. According to an assessment (Al Omia, 2020) regarding the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economic and political order, the US hegemony in world politics would fall and the prevalence of China could rise in “the post-COVID-19” era. China could take an advantage by means of its competence in the field of high-tech. Infrastructure developments and its implementations in different fields as well (Al Omia, 2020).
- 6 Three different conceptual definitions—except for the concept Industry 4.0—can be given as examples for the ongoing technological developments. The first one is the concept “Industrial Internet,” introduced in North America in 2012. The second one is a French concept, called “Industrie du futur”. This term is considered as the core of French high-tech industrial policy. The third one is from China, called “Made in China 2025” (Rojko, 2017, p. 78).
- 7 It can also be interpreted as the discourse which is the transmission medium of ideas.
- 8 Technologies like robotic arms used in industry, computer numeric control (CNC), and computer aided design (CAD) or computer aided manufacturing (CAM).
- 9 Technologies like RFID, machine learning, additive manufacturing.
- 10 We are very well aware of the fact that the working class cannot be considered as a unified solid block. We all know that the working class consists of a merging of different intra working class sections which are discussed under different scopes by a wide range of scholars and thinkers such as Poulantzas, Ehrenreichs, Therborn, Olin-Wright, and Barbrook.
- 11 In other words, using the increased organic composition of capital.
- 12 From hi-tech machinery to the labor power that has the competence to use and functionalize this machinery for the benefit of capitalism.
- 13 Burawoy (1985) analyzes the labor process approach of Braverman through the question of neutrality or non-neutrality of technological progress. Besides, he also focuses on the conditions of market despotism, which is defined by Marx. Burawoy (1985) underlines that the capitalist mode of production uses technology for its own benefit through the subordination of workers to employers.
- 14 At this point, we are taking Marx's analysis of machinery as the reference point. The machinery and technological progress are described as the superior competitors and enemy of the worker by Marx. Besides, Marx (2015b) points out that machinery and technological progress can be used as “the most powerful weapon for suppressing strikes, those periodic revolts of the working class against the autocracy of capital.”
Biography
Güven Savul He has been working as a reseacher at the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions since 2009. He is a PhD. holder in the field of labor economics and industrial relations. His main research area is closely related to the working class and its historical transformation. The relation between labor and technology, the structural transformation of labor market, precariousness are the subjects he has been working on. He has been focusing on the debate on Industry 4.0 and related issues recently. He has a book on the conditions of the ICT workers in Turkey. He also has articles published in different journals.
