Transcendent Man

A thought-provoking documentary centering on Ray Kurzweil, the futurist and inventor who firmly believes in the coming of "the Singularity": the point in time at which artificial intelligence will surpass the capabilities of the human brain and usher in an unfathomable era of exponential growth. These AIs, or cyborgs, would amend themselves to ever greater and rapid degrees of intellectual performance and create "superintelligences" of, what would seem to mere humans to be, god-like proportions. The future thus becomes incalculable and unimaginable to those who exist prior to this event. This will occur, according to Kurzweil and other theorists, by the year 2040.

I believe that the concept of transhumanism, regardless of its dystopian potential (or perhaps, because of it), deserves serious philosophical reflection on our part. These future technologies and their estimated exponential growth alter the meaning, purpose, and even relevance of socialism and nationalism, not to mention human being as a whole. For example, in a world where "human" existence has been reduced to pure and interconnected information patterns, most traditional boundaries and all modes of production become devoid of significance. In the long-term, it is possible that all forms of individual identity (perhaps even the notion of concrete identity itself) would become obsolete. Nationalism would in the course of a relatively short time become an absurdity, and socialism would immediately become an antiquated subject, but I digress. I am purposely simplifying the situation in order to extract the underlying abstractions of importance, although many transhumanists truly envision such a simplified yet profound course of events—Ray Kurzweil definitely being among them.

Some capitalists do claim that the coming technological advancements in the fields of genetics, nanotechnology, and especially robotics (despite the long-standing trend of expanding wealth inequalities around the world) would solve the vast majority of our economic concerns (indeed, most if not all human concerns) and that capitalism will allegedly be "transcended" without any transition to socialism. Needless to say, these conjectures do nothing to dissuade me from advocating on behalf of socialism while capitalism (or any coherent economic order) exists, but they do in a sense serve to seemingly mitigate the "urgency" of action.

Transhumanism will come from within. We don't need technology to shatter the frail human material existence.

Very interesting. The problem is that for some reason any futuristic "cyberpunk" story is dystopian...with good reason! The only pop culture science fiction series that is not a cold and inhuman place to live is the world of "star trek" wich unsurprisingly functions in a very socialist way!

I can lose hours talking about such visions of future, but maybe at a later time.

Admittedly, my familiarity with singularitarianism (or Ray Kurzweil's theories more generally) is fairly minimal, but I intend on remedying that soon. I am, however, relatively well versed in transhumanist theory and its controversial place within the bioethics debate.

By now, you're probably already aware of my favorable view regarding non-coercive forms of human biological enhancement—though with the caveat that it's applied according to a just social plan and implemented under a socialist mode of production. In the transhumanist movement there are, broadly speaking, two ideological factions: the laissez-faire (or 'libertarian') transhumanists, and the left-wing (or 'democratic') transhumanists. James Hughes is probably the most renowned figure in the latter category, and his book Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future is an excellent analysis of transhumanist philosophy, and why human enhancing technologies mustn't be implemented according to capitalist market principles. (Needless to say, my views conform well with those espoused by Prof. Hughes and many democratic transhumanists). I recommend Robin Green's brief essay, "Transhumanist Socialism," to those of you who might be unfamiliar with the theory but are nevertheless interested in it.

Even when regarding the prospect of automation completely replacing human labor for the production of use values—which I presume singularitarians envision occurring in the near future (due to "exponential advancements" being made in the realm of artificial intelligence)—I still believe socialism would be a relevant issue. Important decisions, such as what to produce and in what manner it is to be allocated, wouldn't just be decided on their own. If such technology is developed within the confines of the capitalist mode of production, those decisions would obviously be made by the private owners of the means of production—and, consequently, countless proletarians would suffer due to a lack of purchasing power (which would inevitably arise since there would be a dislocation of labor as a result of ever increasing automation). In fact, the greatest potential for there to be a Luddite backlash against these technologies would be to allow their development to be handled according to the utterly unjust anarchy of the market.

With that said, I'm still skeptical of Mr. Kurzweil's contention that all technological progress occurs "exponentially," as opposed to linearly; I also doubt that we'll see human labor become completely obsolete within our lifetime. Prof. Michio Kaku has said that robotic technology, in its current form, is "less impressive than a retarded cockroach" and claims it'll take perhaps as long as a hundred years before significant levels of artificial intelligence are reached. Science writer, John Horgan (in his book The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication), doubts that "strong" artificial intelligence can ever be attained at all. But more important than the timeline of when (or if) artificial intelligence will make human labor redundant is understanding that the abolition of capitalist injustice is always an urgent matter. We shouldn't just set idly by and hope that (potentially) liberating technology is developed, rendering capitalism anachronistic—it's important to bear in mind that there's no guarantee that whatever successor system would naturally emerge from capitalism, in such a scenario, would even be a desirable one.

As for what role (if any) nationalism, and even ethnicity, will play in our post-human future, it's difficult to say. When we reach the point wherein cognitive and physical traits can be altered at will, there's really no telling what relevance any of our human mores will have any longer. It's certainly an interesting philosophical question, but one which I'll need more time to ponder.

Has only a fleeting link to this subject but. When I was in my final year of school back in the 'Dark Age' of 1970, one of our maths teachers told us about the future.
One day, he said, all work will be performed by robots and human beings will spend all their time in leisure and recreation. Well, he was almost right today most of production is done either by robots, or a labour force treated little better than robots, and quite a few of our people do indeed enjoy more leisure time, on the unemployment register.
So, you'll forgive my cynism to any 'utopian' ideas that will be originaly funded by the 'private' sector.

There is nothing positive in the video. Technology is abstraction, and overabundant technology will ridden our senses and the essential joy of life.

In the tenets of any non-materialist philosophy, possessing a longer life - or even living forever - does not do a thing for the progression of humanity. It does not save a single soul and doesn't help anyone realize higher concepts of life; or truth. Overuse of, and unnecessary technology has led to our decline in certain ways, and corrupts our senses - eliminates majesty and the artistic soul primal to great cultures.

Juhani Pallasmaa, Finnish architect states in Eyes of the Skin:

As buildings lose their plasticity, and their connection with the language and wisdom of the body, they become isolated in the cool and distant realm of vision. With the loss of tactility, measures and details crafted for the human body - and particularly for the hand - architectural structures become repulsively flat, sharp-edged, immaterial and unreal. 'T'he detachment of construction from the realities of matter and craft further turns architecture into stage sets for the eye, into a scenography devoid of the authenticity of matter and construction. The sense of 'aura', the authority of presence, that Walter Benjamin regards as a necessary quality for an authentic piece of art, has been lost. These products of instrumentalised technology conceal their processes of construction, appearing as ghostlike apparitions. The increasing use of reflective glass in architecture reinforces the dreamlike sense of unreality and alienation. The contradictory opaque transparency of these buildings reflects the gaze back unaflected and unmoved; we are unable to sec or imagine life behind these walls. The architectural mirror, that returns our gaze and doubles the world, is an enigmatic and frightening device.

Leave it to some achieving greedy individual to convince his audiences he is a good person and is on the way to furthering man's progress. The progress of man is first and foremost within himself. Once this undertaking is done, understanding of what is actually important and benefits us; abrogation of "humanism," political correctness, and false interpretations of compassion which actually further a world of suffering for billions of increasing populations, will take place.

Contemporary Luddism is reactionary. "Saving" souls is religious.

Technological progress is something that I see little reason in suppressing. Provided that we establish a sound democratic socialist society, advancements in technology can only serve to enhance our way of life. Claiming that it is possible to have an "overabundance" of technology detached from any materialist conception of the world is subjective. I certainly find consumerism to be a repulsive practice, but technology is benign and has incontestably improved the lives of many millions.

Many of these future technologies will almost certainly, provided sufficient time and continuing trends, come to pass, whether we remain subjects of capitalist exploitation or have transcended it; therefore, we must prepare ourselves for them and disallow their privatization. Human genetic engineering, for example, is something that will undoubtedly come to be implemented more frequently as the methods available expand and are refined. It will then be inimical to prevent the sophistication of technology used to treat genetic disorders and to augment human cognitive and physical characteristics. What we must ensure instead is that the technology be available to all of society and not concentrate in the hands of an elite minority.

Socialist transhumanist, Dr. James Hughes, discusses singularitarianism and artificial intelligence:

Celtiberian wrote:Socialist transhumanist, Dr. James Hughes, discusses singularitarianism and artificial intelligence:

Question: Do you think it is desirable for AIs to live among us? Why or why not?

Pantheon Rising wrote:Question: Do you think it is desirable for AIs to live among us? Why or why not?

I honestly don't know. It's a matter I've given little thought to, but one which I'm sure I'll contemplate more in the years ahead. There are many variables to consider.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Celtiberian wrote:I honestly don't know. It's a matter I've given little thought to, but one which I'm sure I'll contemplate more in the years ahead. There are many variables to consider.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

I personally think it would be a travesty to replace humans with robots, except where absolutely necessary. Such as jobs that are potentially very dangerous; for example, the men who had to clean out the nuclear reactors at Fukushima. It would have been invaluable to have an AI in their spot. Question is, can we make AI that advanced?

I see no reason whatsoever to take AIs and place them in spots such as service clerks though. It would take the human aspect out of everyday transactions and just leave us detatched from one another.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I personally think it would be a travesty to replace humans with robots, except where absolutely necessary. Such as jobs that are potentially very dangerous; for example, the men who had to clean out the nuclear reactors at Fukushima. It would have been invaluable to have an AI in their spot.

I view the elimination of unpleasant human labor to be a goal worth striving for, and I therefore support mechanical substitution. Humans should be free to pursue their creative aims, not to be bound to mentally and physically draining activities, which consume valuable time and dull the individual.

Question is, can we make AI that advanced?

That remains to be determined, but I do believe that we can develop them to a sufficient extent necessary for the realization of the goal stated above.

I see no reason whatsoever to take AIs and place them in spots such as service clerks though. It would take the human aspect out of everyday transactions and just leave us detatched from one another.

Commodity fetishism already ensures that we are detached from one another as producers and consumers. Artificial intelligences would only contribute to this to the extent that individual humans subjectively perceived a disconnect, but it is likely that people would simply accept and interact with these machines as time passed. Quite frankly, I find the process of (particularly capitalist) market exchange to be an artificial experience in its own right, including cheap smiles and courtesies that disguise the hollow nature of capital accumulation.

A more serious question than simple mechanic AI is the question of genetic "replicants", or genetic created humanoids for those tasks. The morality of such a creation is highly questionable, but as we all know, capitalism has no moral, and if there is a profit, there is a way.

I view the elimination of unpleasant human labor to be a goal worth striving for, and I therefore support mechanical substitution. Humans should be free to pursue their creative aims, not to be bound to mentally and physically draining activities, which consume valuable time and dull the individual.

What about people who have no creative aims to pursue? I think it would put people out of work. Although I do not plan on doing this job for the rest of my life, right now I spend about 8 hours a day standing in the same spot doing a rather monotonous task. I believe if the workers had control of this work place, they would be able to invest in things to make the job more desirable; however, I do not think they would seek technology to replace them. We would be out of work!

Commodity fetishism already ensures that we are detached from one another as producers and consumers. Artificial intelligences would only contribute to this to the extent that individual humans subjectively perceived a disconnect, but it is likely that people would simply accept and interact with these machines as time passed. Quite frankly, I find the process of (particularly capitalist) market exchange to be an artificial experience in its own right, including cheap smiles and courtesies that disguise the hollow nature of capital accumulation.

True, but I still appreciate the small things. Such as smiling at a pretty waitress in the restaurant, or having a nice conversation with the assistant at home depot. Replacing such things as these with AIs would suck.

Pantheon Rising wrote:What about people who have no creative aims to pursue? I think it would put people out of work. Although I do not plan on doing this job for the rest of my life, right now I spend about 8 hours a day standing in the same spot doing a rather monotonous task. I believe if the workers had control of this work place, they would be able to invest in things to make the job more desirable; however, I do not think they would seek technology to replace them. We would be out of work!

I don't understand why you believe this to be the case. It is both a profoundly pessimistic attitude toward the potential of humanity and offensive. Work, in the sense that we must toil, is not a pleasant experience. Few individuals want to perform unpleasant labor, but they are not at liberty to choose. Mind you, I am not simply suggesting that we indiscriminately eliminate labor while retaining a market for distributive purposes; that would indeed result in social suffering. However, I envision a "higher stage" of socialism where human needs are met due to rational, sustainable, and just allocation of resources made increasingly abundant due to technological progress.

Humans are creative by nature, and this would only become more apparent as unnecessary human labor was phased out. Whether one preferred to pursue the arts, science, or philosophy, our culture would transform so as to imbibe individuals with a deeper sense of commitment to personal and social fulfillment. Some people would focus upon architecture, others upon music, yet others favor applied science, and some more theoretical fields, but all would possess the opportunity to express their creativity and leave a lasting influence upon the world.

We do not find depth and meaning in labor unless that labor is personally fulfilling; otherwise, we simply perform out of necessity, and we can do better than that.

True, but I still appreciate the small things. Such as smiling at a pretty waitress in the restaurant, or having a nice conversation with the assistant at home depot. Replacing such things as these with AIs would suck.

I don't see it in that way. In my view, the termination of both rote, exhaustive labor and profit seeking would expand our social horizons. We would no longer interact with each other as mere producers and consumers, as servants and masters, but as creative people. It would provide us with more time for productive social interaction. We would not become more isolated but more integrated.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:A more serious question than simple mechanic AI is the question of genetic "replicants", or genetic created humanoids for those tasks. The morality of such a creation is highly questionable, but as we all know, capitalism has no moral, and if there is a profit, there is a way.

That is true. Patenting genetic information has already become a profitable venture (viz NOG mouse). It is only a matter of time (mainly constrained by technological development and current law) before private enterprises seek to acquire ownership of entire human genomes.

Rev Scare wrote:I don't understand why you believe this to be the case. It is both a profoundly pessimistic attitude toward the potential of humanity and offensive. Work, in the sense that we must toil, is not a pleasant experience. Few individuals want to perform unpleasant labor, but they are not at liberty to choose. Mind you, I am not simply suggesting that we indiscriminately eliminate labor while retaining a market for distributive purposes; that would indeed result in social suffering. However, I envision a "higher stage" of socialism where human needs are met due to rational, sustainable, and just allocation of resources made increasingly abundant due to technological progress.

Humans are creative by nature, and this would only become more apparent as unnecessary human labor was phased out. Whether one preferred to pursue the arts, science, or philosophy, our culture would transform so as to imbibe individuals with a deeper sense of commitment to personal and social fulfillment. Some people would focus upon architecture, others upon music, yet others favor applied science, and some more theoretical fields, but all would possess the opportunity to express their creativity and leave a lasting influence upon the world.

We do not find depth and meaning in labor unless that labor is personally fulfilling; otherwise, we simply perform out of necessity, and we can do better than that.

Yes, but who is responsible for creation and harvesting of these resources? The workers. Why should someone not helping to contribute to the overall process, other than enjoying architecture, science, or culture in general? I don't believe everyone is cut out to be a philosopher or a musician and the only thing keeping them back is capitalism. I am certainly no musician or architect or even a scientist for that matter. If capitalism were replaced by socialism I would still cease to be any of those things. I am an apprentice electrician. I am sure it is the same for the majority of humans. We should all have to help contribute, I believe the goal of socialism should not be to eliminate labor, but to give workers and the community as a whole more control over the organization of how they produce, and a bigger say in the distribution of the goods they produce.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Yes, but who is responsible for creation and harvesting of these resources? The workers. Why should someone not helping to contribute to the overall process, other than enjoying architecture, science, or culture in general? I don't believe everyone is cut out to be a philosopher or a musician and the only thing keeping them back is capitalism. I am certainly no musician or architect or even a scientist for that matter. If capitalism were replaced by socialism I would still cease to be any of those things. I am an apprentice electrician. I am sure it is the same for the majority of humans. We should all have to help contribute, I believe the goal of socialism should not be to eliminate labor, but to give workers and the community as a whole more control over the organization of how they produce, and a bigger say in the distribution of the goods they produce.

All individuals would benefit from such an arrangement. There would not be one sector that simply tends to another—that would be reminiscent of feudalism and capitalism. Machines would harvest and produce the necessary material; workers would simply oversee this process (which may eventually become unnecessary itself). Technology's purpose is to improve the quality of human life, not to retain obsolete labor. Two hundred years ago, people lived mostly in rural settings and toiled from early morning until dusk on farms; technology has allowed us to circumvent this. I envision a society wherein you would, as an apprentice electrician (perhaps you would pursue electrical engineering and design new methods of applying electrical systems), contribute to the social formation in that capacity and out of your own volition, knowing that your material needs will be provided for.

Clearly, I refer to a post-capitalist, post-market, post-scarcity economy; however, there is no reason why we could not accomplish some of this within a socialist market system. Capitalism has significantly elevated our material existence over the course of two centuries but has bound the vast majority of the population to a pitiful pursuit of the bounty generated; socialism will free us from this.

Are you honestly attempting to argue that working long hours on assembly lines and in coal mines, warehouses, steel mills, corporate bureaucracies, and so forth should be preserved?

Rev Scare wrote:All individuals would benefit from such an arrangement. There would not be one sector that simply tends to another—that would be reminiscent of feudalism and capitalism. Machines would harvest and produce the necessary material; workers would simply oversee this process (which may eventually become unnecessary itself). Technology's purpose is to improve the quality of human life, not to retain obsolete labor. Two hundred years ago, people lived mostly in rural settings and toiled from early morning until dusk on farms; technology has allowed us to circumvent this. I envision a society wherein you would, as an apprentice electrician (perhaps you would pursue electrical engineering and design new methods of applying electrical systems), contribute to the social formation in that capacity and out of your own volition, knowing that your material needs will be provided for.

That surely sounds interesting, and I like the idea. I believe we have a long way to go for that though. Question though: let's say that I didn't want to do that? Would my material needs still be provided for?

Are you honestly attempting to argue that working long hours on assembly lines and in coal mines, warehouses, steel mills, corporate bureaucracies, and so forth should be preserved?

Nooo way, sorry if you thought I implied that. Only that there should be a demand for people to do labor is all and people to manage their own labor. If workers had control over their workplace such things would be eliminated due to the undesirability of the conditions by the workers themselves.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I personally think it would be a travesty to replace humans with robots, except where absolutely necessary. Such as jobs that are potentially very dangerous; for example, the men who had to clean out the nuclear reactors at Fukushima. It would have been invaluable to have an AI in their spot.

Apparently I misunderstood your question. I was under the impression you were referring to the desirability, or lack thereof, in incorporating machines into more personal aspects of our daily lives (e.g., rearing children, cleaning the home, etc.).

As far as artificial intelligence replacing socially necessary labor is concerned, I see no reason why it shouldn't be encouraged in many instances. There are countless disempowering, dangerous, and rote jobs which should be automated as soon as is feasibly possible. That, however, is not to say that automation should be handled according to the logic of capital—as I stated earlier in this thread, the human suffering that would result from the structural unemployment such technology would engender under capitalism is a frightening prospect, and one which I would actively oppose.

There is an important ethical question to consider, which you brought up in subsequent posts, regarding whether or not all human labor should be replaced if the technology exists which would allow for it. Personally, I don't think a future wherein lethargic humans are served their entire lives by various machines is particularly desirable. I agree with Karl Marx, in that I believe creativity and labor are powerful elements of man's Gattungswesen, and they shouldn't be suppressed. So if artificially intelligent robots can one day compose music, paint works of art, design buildings, plan cities, produce literature, and so forth superior to human beings, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should allow this to occur.

Question is, can we make AI that advanced?

I do believe that "strong AI" (or artificial intelligence which surpasses human intelligence) will eventually be attained. I'm skeptical of the more optimistic predictions some researchers make—i.e., that this will occur within our lifetime—but I believe Dr. Hughes in correct in saying we have legitimate grounds for thinking artificial intelligence will eventually be reached.

I see no reason whatsoever to take AIs and place them in spots such as service clerks though. It would take the human aspect out of everyday transactions and just leave us detatched from one another.

Market transactions are dehumanizing in their own right, especially with respect to the service industry. Take the example of a waiter or cashier. I've worked in the service industry for many years, and I can unequivocally state that nothing is more disempowering than having to pretend to be nice to a customer you absolutely loath out of fear of losing your job. Worker self-management, while obviously superior to the authoritarian capitalist structure of the workplace in every conceivable way, would do nothing to redress this particular unpleasant aspect of labor.

Artificial intelligence, as Rev Scare has noted, offers us the very real possibility of even transcending socialism and achieving the higher stage of communism (in which people consume solely on the basis of need). I cannot say that the notion of a society wherein labor is completely voluntary, and scarcity is no longer an issue, is not appealing to me in many ways.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:A more serious question than simple mechanic AI is the question of genetic "replicants", or genetic created humanoids for those tasks. The morality of such a creation is highly questionable, but as we all know, capitalism has no moral, and if there is a profit, there is a way.

This is a question which humanity will definitely have to grapple with in the years ahead, for genetic engineering may well outpace the development of artificial intelligence.

In my opinion, there are no legitimate grounds for engineering human-like, sentient beings for exploitation (e.g., organ harvesting, labor, sexual servitude, etc.). However, if this technology is indeed developed under the capitalist mode of production, I see no reason to suspect that the owners of these genetic patents will forgo doing just that.

Celtiberian wrote:Market transactions are dehumanizing in their own right, especially with respect to the service industry. Take the example of a waiter or cashier. I've worked in the service industry for many years, and I can unequivocally state that nothing is more disempowering than having to pretend to be nice to a customer you absolutely loath out of fear of losing your job. Worker self-management, while obviously superior to the authoritarian capitalist structure of the workplace in every conceivable way, would do nothing to redress this particular unpleasant aspect of labor.

Artificial intelligence, as Rev Scare has noted, offers us the very real possibility of even transcending socialism and achieving the higher stage of communism (in which people consume solely on the basis of need). I cannot say that the notion of a society wherein labor is completely voluntary, and scarcity is no longer an issue, is not appealing to me in many ways.

I don't think ALL market transactions are dehumanizing. I currently work part time in a service industry; as a cashier. I think it is personally fulfilling helping guests out, like giving directions, knowing I made their day a little easier. Yes, I have had angry guests yell at me and I wish I could go tell them to kindly f*ck off, but how would that solve anything? Do you think we should be mean to them? How does that solve anything?

Pantheon Rising wrote:I don't think ALL market transactions are dehumanizing.

I didn't mean to suggest all market transactions are dehumanizing (though generalized commodity production is certainly alienating in several respects—which, incidentally, is one of the reasons I favor the phasing-in of economic planning). There are many ways in which people can achieve self-realization at work in a socialist market economy.

I currently work part time in a service industry; as a cashier. I think it is personally fulfilling helping guests out, like giving directions, knowing I made their day a little easier. Yes, I have had angry guests yell at me and I wish I could go tell them to kindly f*ck off, but how would that solve anything? Do you think we should be mean to them? How does that solve anything?

It's not that telling off rude costumers is particularly helpful, but that having to endure unpleasant people due to fear of unemployment is undesirable. Now, artificial intelligence isn't necessary to address this issue; having the government as the employer of last resort under a socialist market system, full employment under a planned socialist economy, or even a universal basic income under capitalism would be sufficient enough to the solve the problem. However, technology which would render all forms of labor essentially voluntary would be extraordinarily liberating for humanity.

I personally think that this idea ( of labor being completely voluntary and scarcity no longer being an issue) is Utopistic and pointless. I highly doubt technology will become that advanced in our lifetimes and even if it will what would be the point of it? I mean if machines do all the work then what are all the humans going to do ( if they choose not to work)? Have free time all day long? This idea sounds like something out of a science fiction book to me.

I also strongly disagree with the notion that work is usually unfulfilling and undesirable. Many people do enjoy what they do. Believe it or not there are people out there who like doing hard and dangerous work as well. Hell my old man mined coal for 29 years of his life ( to use a personal example). And the only regrets he has is that the company cheated him out of his full black lung benefits. Ive worked in a bauxite mine myself and I must say I enjoyed the work to some extent as well. Id take a hard dangerous blue collar job ( that pays good) any day over an office one ( dont get me wrong, I dont look down on office jobs, I just think their boring). And believe it or not many blue collar workers Ive spoken to think the same way. To replace workers with machines would cause many to lose the meaning of their existence.

Im not saying I live to work. Because Im into many other things as well. But if given a choice Id rather choose being a worker as the purpose of my life than being some lazy scrounger who lets machines do all the work. I come from a long line of peasants ( and a few workers as well). Im proud of being the descendant of people who spent their lives doing hard labor. And so are many other working class people. If you were to take labor away from the worker then you would pretty much kill the meaning of a workers life. To finish up my humble opinion is: Socialism is for Work not against it.