Technology in the hands of the capitalist class is only ever a threat, potential or real, to the interests of the vast majority of society. Ebert, with a veteran’s acumen, says that far from being a solution, under modern capitalism mechanization of production never means freeing workers from long hours and drudgery, but only their displacement and further enslavement.

‘Reviewing the Historical Theory of Mechanization’ by Justus Ebert from Labor Age. Vol. 19 No. 11. November 30, 1930.

“MACHINE Displacement Will Continue; Labor Is Entering New Industrial Era,” thus a headline over the A. F. of L. Executive Council’s report to the Boston convention.

This recalls some contrary contentions. According to the latter there is no fear of a permanent displacement of labor, or of continuously increased unemployment. History, so runs the argument substantially, shows the machine to have been a good thing for labor. It has created new industries and markets, with a consequent demand for labor. And, since history repeats itself, the history of the machine age of the future will be one of similar repetitions for the workers. Thus, everything will be lovely in the long run and “the new industrial era” will be essentially the old one all over again.

This contention seems plausible. It looks convincing, nay, conclusive. However, there are some questions arising in connection therewith. Here we are at the apex of the machine age, when, according to this theory, there ought to be a shortage of labor, greatly surpassing that following the Black Plague of England, because of the world-wide character of machine introduction. But what do we find instead? Alas for the workers, what we actually see are armies of unemployed so impoverished as to compel stagnation and make expanding markets impossible.

Of course it may be argued that this is not a fair conclusion as these are abnormal times in which no real test can, consequently, be made. But, as machinery is a contributing factor to this abnormality, there is no doubt the conclusion is a sound one.

Evidently, the machine-history theory, like all other theories, is not a fixed one. Like all other theories, it is subject to underlying changes. Undoubtedly, it has reached a stage of economic development that renders it, in its original phase, unsound and untenable. It is, accordingly, like many other theories, in a process of modification, if not complete reversal.

For analogy, take the historical view of immigration. In this country immigration was originally based on free land and the population absorption made possible by it. This view is not completely revolutionized. Thanks to present day ownership and job competition, land and employment in this country are held to be practically all preempted. As a consequence, restriction of immigration is now the rule.

So also with the historical theory of machinery and employment. At the beginning of the machine age the inauguration of mechanized industry had a wide open field, as in Russia today, for instance. There was a demand for labor, as a subsequent result. But now such industry is not only fully developed, but is largely overdeveloped and what is of far greater significance, by way of contrast with past ages, its future development is not a matter of labor power but of machinery instead. That is, it increases a demand not for workers but for newer and better machines. This is, as already indicated, a stupendous difference.

The result is that we have reached a stage, as in land development, where machine-displaced laborers became increasingly difficult of absorption and where the one-time new industries, like coal, textiles, autos, transportation, etc., tend to reverse themselves, so that instead of being labor absorbers they are now labor displacers, thanks as also in the case of the movies and the musicians, to ever new mechanisms. Further, with this reversal goes a lowering of purchasing power just at a time when it should be increased instead. This only enhances the difficulties of employment in the machine age.

Obviously, with the basic changes now going on, there is no saving inflexibility to which the advocates of the historical machine theory can cling.

All of the foregoing takes no account of the many boys and girls of age clamoring for gainful employment—every year—seven millions of them every decade according to the A. F. of L. executive’s report. Nor does it consider the rapid pace of modern industrialization, a pace that can only tend to cut down employment rather than enhance its prospects. Russia has already been referred to. Think of what it is attempting to do, in this respect, in five years. Why, it is trying to do in that brief period that which Great Britain and the United States required more than five generations to achieve, namely, the present superb mechanical development of industry. What implications for steady future employment does such speedy adaptation and assimilation contain for workers generally? Do not the achievements of Russia indicate that the mechanization of the future will not only mean an abridgement of employment, but also of opportunities for the workers?

Then again note the rationalization of European industry. Here again we observe new mechanization on a scale that will not admit of any other conclusion than the inevitability of mass unemployment of a permanent nature, especially when taken into consideration with its probable effects on competition for world-markets. In the latter scramble, the victory will go to the highest mechanized nation; the defeats to all others.

There we meet with another phase of machine development that puts more holes (as many as in a sieve) in the historical view; namely, the machine’s world-wide character. When before, in history, have not only all industries, but practically all nations, been intent on mechanical innovations? When before, in history, has the desideratum of “a workerless industry” been so widely and so extensively in evidence as in present day capitalism? With machinery displacing workers everywhere in all industries, there is no doubt that “Machine Displacements Will Continue” and “Labor Is Entering New Industrial Era.”

Is there no hope for the workers then? Not under present-day capitalism. Only social ownership of the machine—of industry the world over—will help. To fit the jobs to the workers and not the workers to the jobs, will be the social solution of the machine and unemployment. Dependence on an outmoded theory will prove of no avail.

Labor Age was a left-labor monthly magazine with origins in Socialist Review, journal of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Published by the Labor Publication Society from 1921-1933 aligned with the League for Industrial Democracy of left-wing trade unionists across industries. During 1929-33 the magazine was affiliated with the Conference for Progressive Labor Action (CPLA) led by A. J. Muste. James Maurer, Harry W. Laidler, and Louis Budenz were also writers. The orientation of the magazine was industrial unionism, planning, nationalization, and was illustrated with photos and cartoons. With its stress on worker education, social unionism and rank and file activism, it is one of the essential journals of the radical US labor socialist movement of its time.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/laborage/v19n11-Nov-1930-Labor-Age.pdf