At the end of March, an economic journalist from Bizkaia wrote about the Automotive Intelligence Center at Amorebieta-Etxano, making a selection for entrepreneurs. Well, that's not the most remarkable thing: it's the editorial line of the media. It should be noted that in the experimental workshop described the concept of flexible factory is used. The article poses a final threat: the experimental workshop has no workers or unions. Technology against workers.

In the last year I have had the opportunity to deepen the relationship between technology and work. What I conclude is that the relationship between these two elements is absolutely complex, multidimensional, in which the historical point of view is indispensable. These are unfounded prophecies that technology is going to make life easier for us, that it's going to do less work or that it's going to kill the workers. These include the threat of the economic journalist.

In a brief review, since the emergence of the capitalist economic system and the working class, capital has tried to master, educate, and eliminate its livelihoods. The workers face it. It's a class struggle. Any explanation of the relationship between technology and work, regardless of this, will be useless, insufficient. Capital has used technology to break workers' control and knowledge of the productive process, and the strategies of resistance adopted by workers in this conflict have been diverse.

The case that is often cited has been that of the Ludotecos. They have set themselves as examples of people against new technologies, against new machines. What the luddites were looking for was to obtain a better position in the face of a technological input that threatened their working and living conditions, defending the scarce power they had left. Contrary to the technology that did not exist, the key is to know how certain technologies affected their work. They responded against the latter. What seems simple at first becomes more complex. In short, the relationship between technological advances and class struggle is complex and cannot be limited to a single perspective.

However, some factors are often excluded from the scope of the analysis. Will technical progress be possible without cheap and affordable energy sources? What about the materials needed to generate these technologies? And here we're talking about capitalism, which we know today, even though we're going to go green. It is clear that climate change is a consequence of capitalist development and, as things are, we could say that it is irreversible. On the other hand, the need for concrete materials and their scarcity question whether we can continue in that direction. The economic growth that approaches technological development as a salvation table presents undesirable limitations. In the case of the factory without workers and without trade unions, fundamental conditions and limitations are therefore kept secret.

In the context in which we live, the key is to know how to reconvert different sectors of the economy, not to think about companies that work without personnel. There is no technocratic and technophilic solution possible if the objective is to achieve a solution for all. It is time to put technology at the service of work and not at the service of capital. But this brings us to the last derivative: the sending of capitalism to history books.