The facts about automation THERE need be no fear- of auto- mation — the process of in- stalling automatic machinery to eliminate repetitive human labor and replacing perhaps fifty, a fundred or more workers by taachines which require only a few technicians to ,supervise them. This is the claim made by the experts and the companies mow busy introducing it at a handsome profit. They would have us_ believe the capitalist system -has within it the economic and social forces that automatically produce the remedy for every ill effect of technological changes. The experts who addressed the CIO. conference -on automation beld in Washington in April were stumped, though, when a par- ticipant called atténtion to the éact that unemployment is nearly three times that of October 1953, when according to US. govern- ment figures the general econ- omic picture was about the same as it is today. John Diebold, rated as an auth- arity on automation, assured the CIO conference that the elec- tronics and automation equip- ment industry is rising by leaps and bounds and will absorb the workers thrown out of the auto- . mated plants. He observed that the industry did a $3 billion tusiness in the U.S. last year. That may be itrue, but the ex- perts had no real answer when it was pointed out that many of the firms in the industry are not new, that General Electric, Interna- tional Business Machines and others which are ‘both outomat- ing their own plants and building equipment to automate other rms — and generally large ones — are in a position to hog the automation business and they‘are doing it. Another Argument is that if products are turned out at lower: cost, due to automation, they will sell at lower prices and the loss Of jobs will be more than balanc- ed by increased pyrchase of those products. That sounds. plausible. But —— Rapid introduction of automation in the automobile industry has compelled Walter Reuther, By GEORGE MORRIS what is the actual situation in the U/S. where automation has vioceeded farther than in any other capitalist country? The U.S.e government’s price index since 1952, for the three years in which .automation has come on the scene most substantially, has. increased slightly! ‘ ©@ These are only a few of the automaters’ falsehoods as_ they campaign to combat the growing demand for a positive program on automation. They. have an “‘ace-in-the-hole” argument, how- ever. As Diebold put it to the CIO: “The most compelling reason” (for automation) is the “divided world” with the camp under Wall Street’s leadership ‘“outnumber- ed” by the countries led by the Soviet Union. He said:_ “We must in some manner make up for this difference in manpower. Automation ‘offers one possibility. If this alone were the only justification for automation, it would in my opinion be sufficient.” The real point in this argu- ment is that those who advance it expect the cold war economy to stretch out for many years. Walter S.. Buckingham of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who presented a‘ more balanced and considered view on the ques- tion before the CIO conference, rebuked those who attack labor tor alleged fear of science and invention. He said a critical view of automation is not opposition to progress. He pointed to many unwelcome byproducts of auto- mation. Here are some of them: + ‘Since automated plants re- quire little manpower, they can’ be built and located in areas where labor is scarce, away from large population ‘centres. Some- thing for unions «to note. + Automation will further the growth of monopolies because only a few large companies can take full advantage of the very expensive automation facilities and use that advantage to put competition out of the field. + Automation will speed the tate at which equipment becomes obsolete. This will stimulate the idea of relocating plants when, (as is usually the case) they are Suilt to meet the requirements of the new technology. + The trend will be toward tewer workers in production, and expansion into the service and distribution fields — the fields ieast organized and so far found most difficult to unionize. . + © The fields in which automa- tion is concentrated and most ap- plicable are in the organized 25 percent of the labor force. It is the unionized workers who will feel the effects most directly. Buckingham sees the prospect vt heavy displacement of skills and much unemployment. He says finding new jobs for the dis- placed will be a serious prob- fem. ® What kind of a program are . the unions shaping on automa-. tion? The CIO conference, as CIO president Walter Reuther ' said in his speech at the gather- ing, was really an initial step for 'a discussion on the problem. The AL officially has so ‘far indieated little concern. There is no doubt,. however, that AFL unions like the Machinists, Mold- ers, Electrical Workers and oth- ers are becoming as concerned as the CIO. The general attitude of labor, es expressed in a CIO pamphlet, - is to welcome technological pro- gress. The premise is that solu- tions can be found within the framework of the capitalist so- ciety. But sharp issue is taken with the idea that the remedies will come automatically. The need for labor action and government leg- is:ation is recognized. & ' Walter Reuther, in his speeches on automation usually makes the point, as he did at the CIO’s con- ference, that “we have the com- petent engineers but not the so- cial scientists; we have the tech- nological knowhow ‘but- our so- cial engineering is far behind.” And Reuther inevitably goes on to play on anti-communism, to warn that if we don’t have the international president of the United Auto Workers, to couple his guaranteed annual wage demand with the demand for the 30-hour week. Yet two years ago he was able to defeat the 30-hour resolu- tion in the international convention with the argument that it interfered with the union‘s guaranteed annual wage demand. Semi-automatic machinery has taken the jobs of thousands coal miners in recent years. They have ‘not “automatically absorbed into other industries. (73 “social engineers” and the “‘so- cial” answers that must go along with the technologic advance, even atomic and hydrogen bombs will not save our “free enter- prise” system and communism will win the “battle of the minds.” : Reuther’s “social engineering” line is really a twisting of the views he held a generation back when he ‘advocated socialism and spoke in glowing terms of the So- viet Union, where he spent a year. In those days he held the Marx- ist view that it is impossible under capitalism to bridge the widening chasm between produc- tion and mass purcRasing power. He now joins the defenders of capitalism with the view that it is possible to span the chasm, and to do so in peacetime, but warns that unless capitalism does make it possible, it will be doom- ed. The truth is, as Reuther knows only too well, that no permanent remedy for the unwanted effects - of automation or any other tech- nological change is possible un- der capitalism. This does not mean that the CIO proposals for a program to meet automation are futile. On ithe contrary, left-wingers in the labor movement and Marxists in particular, are the most vigorous supporters of those measures. A rise in wages or in unem- ment insurance doesn’t solve the problem of underpayments of wages and unemployment. But the workers have no alternative but to struggle day after day for such improvements, or they’ll fall farther behind in their strug- gle for survival under capitalism. Automation is not a Peculiarly U.S. development. It is world- wide and, it need hardly be add- ed here, it is making tremendous strides in the Soviet Union and the other lands of socialism. The most outspoken enemies of the Soviet Union acknowledge the technological progress it is making. ‘ But in the land of socialism no one puts the issue “Automation, a blessing or a curse?” Public ownership of the major means of production, the absence of cap- italism, the elimination of ex- ploitation of workers in all the basic industries, makes every- technological advance — ‘ertain- ly automation — a contributor to the general welfare/ That is why, as the CIO dele- gation to the Soviet ‘Union in 1946 reported, the USSR had had no need to draw on unemploy- ment insurance since 1931. Ther was no unemployment. : ‘peen “relieved” of jobs 7 mall ‘machines now being 12 a . N In the Soviet Union 1 1 can only be unemployed if is mechanical breakdow? ° paid some such reason, and he re, he his regular wages as thoude the yorked. ‘That is the 1aW ~~ land. the The greater the output at higher the living standart ? is a basic law of socialis™ — ay are no private owners hi ghet propriate the benefits of productivity. : y In the U.S. the motive £07 fain mation is profit. If at 4 1s moment the market appe@ nigh limited and profits are Ve ve the company will automa. of gardless of the utility ste nou! the article it produces, al ati tomorrow the whole. auto het system may be down ant dust for lack of a market. In the socialist countries “46 concentrate attention WP nosti’ cording to a planned ¢? most aud social program, it needed for the general To listen to some 0 maters, you would think ° 5 was under socialism. tio of the benefits of automa™ ainy eliminating ‘ hard work, ction work or monotonous ae It “lightens” labor, they © jo At ceremonies in Wa¥? «Got Va., marking the openin& for eral Electric’s giant plant * yi duction . of automation op? ment last May, L. T- R@ a said automation “relieve> and of more monotonous chor) frees him for more creat! interesting work.” aer That would hold true W pay cialism. Automation unde f BB italism relieves a workel <> ye job and forces him to fin ay pe can, another job that ne and more monotonous, hazard? : dirtier. ave Thousands of coal mine! ie years by the new semi an du! by the hundreds.. ray! Unemployed miners, P it for a chance to do the bat speif very hazardous work % cyl? families can live, are 2° ed ip matically” being absor other fields. 3 an ult Only under socialism te {p? mation be guided along b sul yield the most productive and {0 where the most needed, do eliminate or minimize pjecti™ and other of the most O™ able features in work. 1 enti There are no “socl# i eers” in existence W y se make capitalist technolor 05! the people as a whole. thin ; that can be done, Wilh om framework of capitalis™ ., pt” minimize the effects thre 10 po vosals like those in gram on automation. 0 pace PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JULY 8, 1955 By ;