获取方案

skilled artisans to automation. Noble writes from a Marxist perspective, and his central argument is that management, in its decisions to automate, conspired against labor: the power that the skilled machinists wielded in theindustry was intolerable to management. Noble fails to substantiate this claim, although his argument is impressive when he applies the Marxist concept of “de-skilling”—the use oftechnology to replace skilled the automation of the machine-tool industry. In automating, the industry moved to computer-based, digitalized “numerical control" (N/C) technology, ratherthan to artisan generated “record-playback" (R/P) technology.

Although both systems reduced reliance on skilled labor, Noble clearly prefers R/P, with its inherent acknowledgment of workers’ skills: unlike N/C, its programs were produced not byengineers at their computers, but by skilled machinists, who recorded their own movements to “teach" machines to duplicate those movements. However, Noble's only evidence ofconspiracy is that, although the two approaches were roughly equal in technical merit, management chose N/C. From this he concludes that automation is undertaken not becauseefficiency demands it or scientific advances allow it. but because it is a tool in the ceaseless war of capitalists against labor.