When will that transformation truly for the people?
(Ramblings on Digital Transformation
and how the system uses it for their benefit)
At present, "Digital Transformation" in the Philippines remains in its emergent stage.
For despite having existing platforms necessary to push through that said attempt, as well as various entities getting engaged in that program, that program has to undergo a series of challenges ranging from setting regulations and creating regulatory bodies, to those of adopting behaviours of digital natives, of delivering outstanding digital customer service, of investing in technology, and in future proofing business models.
For knowing that the continuous development of modern technology hath transformed economies and massively disrupted the status quo in some if not developed countries, it is obvious that existing entities of various sorts have no choice but to adapt in order to mitigate its negative effects if not to ensure its stability and survival- especially in a time when everyone is living in a world where anything seems to become intangible as it affects man and society through present and future breakthroughs, shifts, and changes- and most existing companies find it challenging to meet this kind of demand what Über, Facebook, or AirBnB enjoys, and in general, trying to "update" the present order and making it appear as "reforming" and "adapting to the changing times."
Sounds optimistic isn't it? As things digital hath meant chances of providing development, one would say that in a time when Über, the world’s largest taxi company owns no vehicles, that Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner creates no content, that Alibaba, the most valuable retailer has no inventory, and Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider owns no real estate, the attempt to bridge man and machinery has been the topics discussed by both technology and business experts, as well as an idea being toyed by the state especially in matters which technology can help in resolving their problems.
Furthermore, there are theorists whom currently discuss routinely about the "Third Industrial Revolution" with "Information and Communications Technology" as its cutting edge, and there are also those claiming that the world is at the threshold of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution" which is marked by emerging technology breakthroughs in a number of fields, including robotics, artificial intelligence, blockchain, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, The Internet of Things, 3D printing, and autonomous vehicles.
And in most developed countries, these massive developments are in full swing given the explicit support from their governments as well as capacity to innovate as part of improving its existing foundations, making the emerging digital economy appear different to what existed before. In Germany for instance, in its attempt to "usher in a fourth industrial age" as said earlier, provided a project which promotes the computerization of manufacturing, as it tends to create a "smart factory" which includes cyber-physical systems, the Internet of things, cloud computing, and cognitive computing alongside automation.
But in the case of the developing countries, it turned to be different- for the use of digital technology is largely meant for the retention of the status quo despite providing beneficial changes the way trains and automobiles meant improved means of transportation; and that the use of Cellular Phones did reach the poor masses in a desire to create better access to communication. However, from these developing countries, there are times that attempts for transformation, aside from initially hard to grasp with all its difficult terminologies, also came into conflict especially in industrial enclaves as it threatens jobs, as those who favour, in greatly emphasise efficiency, disregard those who actually work such as those of a human labourer.
All in all, both Developed and Developing countries, knowing that all these feats are made in a time Capitalism struggles for its survival, then are these technological changes truly a novelty for the benefit of the working class and communities? Or do they only continue the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few? For sure people have noticed how robotics replaced manpower in factory work and the possible use of artificial intelligence as a replacement for human interaction in the service industry, if not being treated as empty rhetoric if not half-baked realisations as it benefits the ruling few. These and more possible feats has made technology under capitalism created change that is superficial than beneficial. Superficial in a sense that it appears to be for the benefit of everyone when in fact it is meant to make profit from it.
Worse, that same transformation can possibly hinder one's rights, especially after using security and stability as its pretext.
Furthermore, there are theorists whom currently discuss routinely about the "Third Industrial Revolution" with "Information and Communications Technology" as its cutting edge, and there are also those claiming that the world is at the threshold of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution" which is marked by emerging technology breakthroughs in a number of fields, including robotics, artificial intelligence, blockchain, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, The Internet of Things, 3D printing, and autonomous vehicles.
And in most developed countries, these massive developments are in full swing given the explicit support from their governments as well as capacity to innovate as part of improving its existing foundations, making the emerging digital economy appear different to what existed before. In Germany for instance, in its attempt to "usher in a fourth industrial age" as said earlier, provided a project which promotes the computerization of manufacturing, as it tends to create a "smart factory" which includes cyber-physical systems, the Internet of things, cloud computing, and cognitive computing alongside automation.
But in the case of the developing countries, it turned to be different- for the use of digital technology is largely meant for the retention of the status quo despite providing beneficial changes the way trains and automobiles meant improved means of transportation; and that the use of Cellular Phones did reach the poor masses in a desire to create better access to communication. However, from these developing countries, there are times that attempts for transformation, aside from initially hard to grasp with all its difficult terminologies, also came into conflict especially in industrial enclaves as it threatens jobs, as those who favour, in greatly emphasise efficiency, disregard those who actually work such as those of a human labourer.
All in all, both Developed and Developing countries, knowing that all these feats are made in a time Capitalism struggles for its survival, then are these technological changes truly a novelty for the benefit of the working class and communities? Or do they only continue the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few? For sure people have noticed how robotics replaced manpower in factory work and the possible use of artificial intelligence as a replacement for human interaction in the service industry, if not being treated as empty rhetoric if not half-baked realisations as it benefits the ruling few. These and more possible feats has made technology under capitalism created change that is superficial than beneficial. Superficial in a sense that it appears to be for the benefit of everyone when in fact it is meant to make profit from it.
Worse, that same transformation can possibly hinder one's rights, especially after using security and stability as its pretext.
It may sound strange but bluntly speaking, "Digital Transformation" at the hands of the present order is like any other move meant for a consolidation of interests. Despite things modern and appealing to the people, these are made even at the expense of the folk especially when it comes to the use of innovation. And its apologists would churn statements such as driven by the need for efficiency in running state affairs, improving economic development, and better access to social welfare particularly to those in need, this kind of transformation is itself a necessary move in a time when anything deals with business or governance with its organizational activities, processes, competencies and models requires immense use of technology.
And to think that with words such as "security", "stability", "safety", "efficiency", and others relatable to their the use of technology being promoted throughout by this present order, this may also meant an improved repressive state apparatus, especially when it comes to monitoring people and worse, the willingness by the order to aggressively use electronic and digital technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens. In the Philippines for example, the recent calls for a "National Identification System", despite its approval by the present administration, is still being questioned by some concerned sectors, as well as the opposition for its possible risks ranging those of invasion of privacy if not one of the signs of a coming police state in which President Duterte and his clique advocated.
Fear-provoking isn't it? For despite its benefits presented to its citizens, the system sees these technologies necessary to maintain the stability of the state, even at the expense of people's rights.
But to those who looked optimistically that kind of transformation, that attempt to transform the country digitally invokes hope as it continues to be depicted in a form of anything that is a wireless interconnectivity if not a myriad of things modern and state of the art- that makes Filipinos think as necessary to improve efficiency, security, accessibility, and productivity like those of its developed neighbours. And also to think that most of Filipinos, as any other Asiatic, has afforded to enjoy the use of social media, the use of mobile applications, of Uber, Grab, AirBnB, and others whose expertise in things "wireless" has reached consumers yearning for comfort- and therefore, willingly to see further a more efficient access to services through digital means.
Yet still, this doesn't translate to full scale development that uplifts especially those of the masses. True that the masses did benefit from modern technology, but the present order hinders them from their upliftment no matter how they worked hard, save, and doing things productive. At some countries (including the Philippines), artificial intelligence poses a threat to workers in the Business Process Outsourcing sector or Automation via Robotics towards workers in a factory. Quite nice to hear those numerous achievements brought about by digital technology, but again-who is to benefit? The recent protests at Nutriasia and in PLDT perhaps made these well-off owners toying the idea what this post tackled about, that even at the expense of man as a worker the idea is on how to raise profits. Of course, they need manpower for a time being-and can be disposed right away regardless of the law.
But remember- most if not all these factors compelled Marx and Engels to make notes regarding those problems, for as capital tends to concentrate in the hands of richest, as well as predicted that larger firms would be able to achieve economies of scale and thus produce at lower average costs than smaller firms. Competition between the larger firms and the smaller firms would result in the elimination of the latter. And while the size of the firms increases with the accumulation of capital, the degree of competition in the market diminishes. And also as a result of the mismatch between human need and industrial conditions, modern life is rife with depression, helplessness, and despair- for as man itself became cogwheels whose drivel is to be remunerated after long hours work.
But remember- most if not all these factors compelled Marx and Engels to make notes regarding those problems, for as capital tends to concentrate in the hands of richest, as well as predicted that larger firms would be able to achieve economies of scale and thus produce at lower average costs than smaller firms. Competition between the larger firms and the smaller firms would result in the elimination of the latter. And while the size of the firms increases with the accumulation of capital, the degree of competition in the market diminishes. And also as a result of the mismatch between human need and industrial conditions, modern life is rife with depression, helplessness, and despair- for as man itself became cogwheels whose drivel is to be remunerated after long hours work.
In the end, despite the so-called "efforts" done by the present order, of "Build Build Build" and the likes (including those tinkering of technology by the system itself), this didn't lessen the problem which the bulk of these folks are in the countryside, mostly oppressed peasants who have long been waiting for help, hungry of scientific education and genuine rural development; while in the urban enclaves wherein exploited workers are rather burdened with very low wages, forced to work in unjust conditions, and forced to content in having lack of social services like decent housing or shelter, health care, water supply, and electricity. The recent strikes made entrenched entities tinker the idea of automation as to dispose workers, thinking with machines replacing manpower meant efficiency-if not getting themselves free from paying wages and other benefits.
True that in this age of having communities improved by digital means lies the development of communities and the country in general: but given this still slow-paced expansion to the masses, what more of the need to prioritise setting new foundations, hope that this "Digital Transformation", in supporting the revival of agriculture and industry should be benefited by these folks, for they are the ones supposed to be benefiting from the fruits of this advanced science and technology.
***
Pardon if the note is criticising what others think as means to alleviate from the problems of malproduction and misdistribution, for the fact that the technology-based transformation did address or resolve some of the crises, it cannot deny that existing economic policies particularly those of unregulated capitalism, and the use of "freedom" as its basis for uninterrupted exploitation and intense competition (that turns out to be a dog-eat-dog scenario), has created an anarchy in production and even in distribution; and from these innovations it rather provided temporary relief while making its contrary even worse in a form of long-term crises- thus affecting development of both humanity and its society.
And other than economic issues, one would also think that if that transformation makes one secure, then how come issues like the leakage of personal information from the Commission on Elections occur? Is the "National Identification System" actually meant to resolve the multiplicity of government-issued identification per agency or intendedly used to gather personal data such as those of a potential dissenter?
From these no wonder why this person, as well as others concerned would think that the idea, no matter how good it is (with intents such as inclusive and sustainable growth, improved governance, and responsive service delivery), yet at the hands of the order, rather negates its ideal intent and instead emphasises its actual goal: to retain the order at all costs. On the first place, did they consult the folks regarding this matter? After all, that "Digital Transformation" is not a technological fix, a blueprint plan, a one-off event, nor a one-size-fits-all strategy. But rather, it is a social learning process, sustained over time, and involves diverse stakeholders especially those of the masses who meant to be uplifted and benefited.