There are many attempts to face the global crisis which the acceleration of technology is part of. While we don't claim to have any perfect solutions (at least not yet!), the part after this will present a discussion about proposed ways forward. But before we get into that, we here give our arguments for rejecting proposals of increasing prominence, nowadays even in some parts of the left, to deal with upcoming technological challenges.
Neo-Malthusianism
Lately the conception that the planet is populated by too many people who consume too much of the world's resources has cropped up in the environmental movement. These arguments are reminiscent of the arguments put forward by Malthus two centuries ago and later again in "The Population Bomb". The problem with these arguments is that they are not just wrong, but also dangerous. These thoughts lead straight to racist eugenics theories, or bizarre moralistic life projects such as living a "child-free life" ( https://www.birthstrikeforfuture.com/ https://www.ottar.se/artiklar/vilka-barn-r-v-lkomna). In China the one-child policy was a state example of this Malthusianism. Rather than trying to create a better world for all and removing the issues of destructive mass agriculture that strips people of their ability to work their own land and feed themselves, ending the climate crisis which makes people migrate, and changing the entire mode of production these solutions only make sense if you have accepted the limitations inherent in the capitalist system.
Our solution is, of course, a world where we destroy some technologies and reshape our relation to the material (and thus technological) world. There is enough food for everyone to eat. We can make items such as light bulbs or phones so that they do not break (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence), we can seize and redistribute existing resources, we can live in a better world without ascetism and without the massive eugenics programs and state control that neo-malthusianism would require.
Accelerationism
Accelerationism has been a constant reference point throughout Red Mirror. Many of the basic starting points of accelerationist thought are shared by us: that technology utterly changes the game, that we have a chance for a better world through technology. (http://www.cs.gettysburg.edu/~duncjo01/assets/writings/library/accelerate_manifesto.html ). So how do we differ? First of all the catchy slogan of Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC) is simply impossible energy-wise. There is not enough energy in the world for the entire globe to live the way Swedes do today so to just imagine that we need to have more of everything is inconceivable even with massively developed solar power ( https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2514848619863607 ). Many accelerationists are aware of these issues (https://luxurycommunism.com/about/) but have not yet come up with a reworking of their framework. We need to reconsider the FALC slogan, but it appears that "Mostly Automated But Also A Lot of Technologies Are Destroyed And Some We Only Use Sometimes And Also It's Ecological Communism" is not that catchy of a slogan. We do need to reconsider how to reformulate FALC, how to craft a vision which is possible, concrete and as inspiring as FALC can be.
We have also noted that many accelerationists are worryingly reformist: they champion the use of political parties, of Gramscian-style hegemonic struggles, trade unionism and so on. We do not believe this to be an inherent position to accelerationism and that we can rather have an antagonistic, bottom-up approach to the same issues. It is naive to believe that political parties have any power over the material acceleration which is occuring, and that in a world which is developing a powerful subjectivity from below, which is utterly hostile to parliamentarism, it is absurd to take one's chances with these old solutions for governering in a world which no longer can be governed. (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-invisible-committe-now)
Reformism
Reformism is a tendency which reoccurs in the class struggle, it is a variety of attempts to stabilise capitalism. Today the main reformist camp relating to technology is the Green New Deal idea which is developed in the US and the UK by politicians like Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders and Corbyn. The historical New Deal was a Keynesian attempt to save capitalism by massive state expenditures, which it successfully accomplished. A Green New Deal is much the same thing, another way to make sure that the destructive tendencies of capitalism don't destroy the system itself through massive ecological collapse, poverty and ensuing revolt. The belief is that Donald Trump and his cronies can never stabilise the American political situation as he is unable to - materially and politically - form a class coalition, but that people like Sanders can do this. ( https://crimethinc.com/2018/01/24/anarchists-in-the-trump-era-scorecard-year-one-achievements-failures-and-the-struggles-ahead )
When these crisis moments which blossom in the US and the UK become even stronger we will see a resurgence of trying to create a capitalism with a human face: perhaps a six hour work day, a basic income (more on this below), more digitalization, green investments in the economy and support for the countryside. While this sounds nicer than the reactionary hellhole we live in today, we must remember that every crisis is an opportunity for us, not just to put a band aid on the wound but to actually destroy a system which necessitates constant exploitation.
Primitivism
Primitivism remains a fringe idea but it tends to reappear, if as nothing else then as a position which is opposed to accelerationist ideas. Primitivism is utterly caught in the ideological dichotomy of technology pessimism and optimism, misunderstanding capitalist development utterly. We are skeptical towards many technologies, but they must be analysed and reconsidered on a case-by-case basis. Humans are part of nature and part of the material world, primitivism builds on the idea that humans are somehow special and through this position they reproduce sexist dualisms such as nature/culture, pure/corrupted, nature/technology, women/men. (https://gatorna.info/threads/an-essay-on-green-nihilism-1057/ )
The primitivist world would be one where diabetics would all be dead, where infant death would skyrocket, where billions would starve to death in the transition. This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy, a dystopian vision of blood and death which is so far removed from our goals that we're astounded that anyone would ever entertain such ideas. Conceptions that we should want to live in a hunter-gatherer society might appear as a nice romantic dream, but this is not possible today without the mass death of billions.
While some primitivists appear to want to question civilization as a concept or technology overall and see primitivism as a critique rather than a political program ( https://www.gatorna.info/threads/en-svartgron-kritik-av-marxism-1686/ ) we are uncertain why their position is necessary. We are quite critical of many technologies, as should be apparent in this text, and there are many good theories and concepts which offer tools for a critique that does not lead into primitivist assumptions.
Why oppose fascist marches, fight the police state, strike against climate chaos, blockade the streets for workers rights, organise talks on feminism or support antiracist struggles if we do not do it for the goal of liberating humanity? With this being our goal we must firmly oppose primitivist suggestions and look for a third way between primitivism and accelerationism.
Universal Basic Income - What's Wrong with Free Money?
One thing that comes up a lot when discussing the future of work, and in some instances capitalism, is the topic of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). The basic idea is that some entity, usually the government, pays a sum of money to everyone. While the idea is that there's nothing you need to "do" in order to receive the money, most proposals assume you're a citizen of whatever country would be doing this, which is what we'll assume for simplicity, but isn't strictly relevant for our basic argument.
In essence everyone gets an amount, typically this is defined as enough to have a decent life, without further specification, without having to accomplish anything in return. And if you don't think too hard about it, that sounds great on paper. Who doesn't love free money? We see several problems with the concept of a UBI. While our main ideological argument is that this is a reformist idea with all the problems that this implies (see above), we also believe that at it's heart this is an idea that most reformists shouldn't want to touch either.
The idea of a UBI has been around in various forms for several centuries, but the proposal as we know it today is largely a product of the past 3-4 decades. Neoliberal economist Milton Friedman proposed a "negative income tax" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax) - in essence, those earning below a certain threshold would not pay tax, and instead receive money from the government up to a certain level. In a more modern context the economist and co-founder of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Guy Standing is another example of this position.
The problems with a UBI are several - in a basic capitalist market economy the most basic argument is that it would just cause massive inflation. If everyone's incomes was increased, landlords would still want to take 30-40% of that, supermarkets would increase the price of food, and so on and so forth. This is simply capitalism and greed at work - if everyone could afford to pay more, why not make them? Essentially, arguing that this will not happen means arguing that modern capitalism isn't all that profit-oriented.
Another argument made by reformists is that the government would actually save money with a UBI scheme. The argument is that UBI could replace existing social welfare, housing programs, social work - and, since it's such a simple system (just give everyone money and you don't have to employ all the pesky social workers), the end result is that this ends up cheaper than existing programs.
We feel this argument ignores some basic social facts - that the need for housing and social programs isn't only caused by a lack of income. A reoccuring argument for a UBI is the ability to cut back on social services since with more money for poor people there wouldn't be a need for those services. Even with a UBI, a nontrivial amount of people would end up spending their income on gambling, drugs, alcohol etc. And obviously, a lot of people who aren't addicts (e.g. sick or elderly people) also have special needs that aren't easily solved by just having richer sick people. These problems require a welfare system.
We have thus looked at several defining perspectives on technology on the left and criticized these. In the next part we will try to overcome the limitations within these theories and present some basic drafts for a radical left theory on technology and society.
Red Mirror
Feed