Paul Mason’s new book Postcapitalism is an interesting read. It’s not that it presents any breathtakingly new arguments – it should ultimately be read as another contribution in what is termed the Autonomist Marxist tradition. I see a lot of problems with Marxism, and with the autonomous Marxist tradition; but the one thing this book does is bring some of the more interesting ideas into the mainstream. The thrust is that automation – as even the utopian dreams of the 1960s once declared – could potentially spell the end of capitalism. But I would argue that automation doesn’t inherently possess any such values; it could help humanity in some quest to be free of labour, or it could be used to achieve the opposite, if we imagine a spectrum of extremes.
A lot of contemporary scholarship considers technology as a social relation that is value sensitive. In other words: tech can be used for good or for bad. To define good and bad in this context is not easy. One aspect of Mason’s thesis is that automation is leading toward the end of capitalism insofar that capitalism is struggling to adapt. Providing a scarce number of examples, it is not so difficult to refute his argument and say that capitalism is adapting. I also wonder if too much hope is being put into technology, when, as one reviewer recently reflected, the question is: is anyone listening?
It is one thing for automation, as it is currently conceived within modern political-economy, to aid in imaging how it may be improved in the future to shape social-economic systems and relations. It is another thing to suggest it is actually leading to some positive future. Maybe it will lead to another, deeply troubling version of an inequitable system: the 1% of course being further enriched at the cost of the many. Regarding concerns of the latter, I think Mason’s thesis leaves us with an already well identified conundrum: what to do, in the current economic context, with those left behind? Basic Income is one policy Mason proposes. I am also an advocate of Universal Basic Income in the short-term, as do not think it is not sufficient in-itself as a long-term solution. Unless it coincides with wider and clear policies and, indeed, a systems view of alternative economic modelling, it can easily be adapted to go against the social purpose of helping affected members of the workforce retain, for example. In a recent article I offered one idea of how to use Basic Income as a key support in the process of economic transition, which still leaves the future open for vital transformation beyond immediate economic reform.
Another response to automation, as Chris Schofield points out, has more of a progressive transformative edge: to transcend capitalism toward something that looks more like economic democracy – as the robotisation of human jobs should indeed be harnessed for people not just profit – permitting 15-hour working weeks not too dissimilar to those Keynes spoke of in 1930. That is, automation could be one dimension of a broader politics and economics which might take the first step toward a whole new economic world. Speculative, hopeful, and idealistic no doubt – an idea that requires much more rigour than currently served. For that to happen, the policy around automation must be designed systematically across society. The problem is: automation, as it currently stands, lacks normativity. It is divorced from any decent theory (and thus a basis to inform its regulation) that may guide its development, and thus it is susceptible to the contradictions of the current social and economic system. I am also constant weary of ideological import. In other words: automation is neither good nor bad, and I am hesitant to project any ideology onto it. I think there is good historical argument to appeal to core humanistic and enlightenment values, which, I would argue, can resist ideological temptations; and so maybe this is a start to a formulating a normative basis of critique.
What is clear, it is hard to imagine automation actually spelling the end of capitalism. At most, automation today is essentially stumbling in the dark toward many possible futures.
