|
Two Feasible Future Scenarios:
A high-tech Utopia and a high-tech Dystopia1
Trond Andresen (The Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
© Copyright 2004 Trond Andresen
Introduction
The current political and ideological
climate does not encourage the launching and discussing of truly long-range goals
for societies (in this paper “long-range” means “a century or two”). Such
topics are discouraged for several reasons:
1. The
dramatic and complete collapse of attempts at socialist societies.
2. Related disillusionment also because of revealed theoretical and
ideological weaknesses of socialism and communism.
3. The increasing “postmodernist” belief in many academic and intellectual
circles that (even) such until now uncontroversial “programs” as
enlightenment and progress are “simply not possible”.
This paper holds that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. If
utopias – grand visions for qualitatively better societies – do not play a
part in public debate, this has detrimental effects on political choices
made today, also and even when the visions in themselves are maybe infeasible
and can never be completely realized. In this context the metaphor of an
asymptote may be useful. An asymptote in mathematics means a straight line
that a given graph approaches with an always-diminishing gap, but which it
will never reach completely. The
utopian society to be presented is feasible in an asymptotic sense.
Another important concept for this paper
is the self-fulfilling prophecy: Political processes, as opposed to
natural or “physical” processes, are subject to this mechanism. If some new
view or proposal for big change is disseminated only by some individuals or
fringe groups, and only mentioned occasionally in the media, it may easily be
disparaged as “crackpot”. But attitudes and ideas that are repeatedly
disseminated and talked about will after a while seem feasible and
“realistic” even if they were initially met with skepticism
– what was controversial becomes conventional wisdom by repetition. An
example of the latter is how public opinion of what constitutes a
“realistically” achievable level of employment has (been) changed since the
early seventies, and how this change in opinion has made possible political
reforms to that disadvantage the unemployed. But the mechanism of the
self-fulfilling prophecy should also give grounds for optimism, since it can
work the opposite way: It indicates that unconventional or “grand” ideas
should not necessarily be considered crackpot because they are initially
derided.
In the above spirit, with the (somewhat pretentious) notion of contributing
to self-fulfilling prophecy processes, this paper will present both a utopia
and a dystopia. The first one should be strived for, the second one avoided
(the author brashly assumes that most readers will agree on the attractive,
respective repulsive, characters of the two scenarios to be presented).
Both future visions have something in common: They presuppose that science
and technology progress in a relentless manner, and is not something that may
or will be hindered or retarded significantly by human interference. (Thus
the possibility of a grand collapse of modern civilization into barbarism for
some reason is not considered.)
With the assumption of progress in science and technology (I should note the
term “progress” is used in a strictly descriptive way – not implying any
positive value per se), it follows that employment in all types of work that
can be automated will contract: in the dystopia, to increase profits without
a second thought to those that lose their jobs, in the utopia as a deliberate
tool to liberate labour for meaningful “service” jobs – creating,
interacting, teaching, entertaining or caring for other people.
The utopian scenario
Maybe the most famous single quote describing the essence of a future utopia
is this from Karl Marx:
In a higher phase of
communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the
division of labor, and therewith also the
antithesis between mental and physical labor, has
vanished; after labor has become not only a means
of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also
increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the
springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the
narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society
inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs!” (Marx, 1875).
Marx’ visions for communism is (sadly) somewhat out of fashion these
days, so let us turn to literary (science) fiction, which is less constrained
by what is considered “realistic”. The novel The Dispossessed by
Ursula K. LeGuin (1974) describes a communist
society in the Marxian sense (with one important exception). In the language
spoken in this society, the word for “play” and “work” is the same. But there
is a separate term for “drudgery”. This is an important point for the utopia
to be discussed: Work must be attractive in itself. LeGuin’s
utopia diverges strongly from the Marxian one however, in the sense that “to
each according to his needs” is difficult to fulfill.
Hers is an anarcho-communist society with
scarcity. This society is realized on an arid planet with few natural
resources, and is constrained by this in spite of advanced science and
technology. While individuals are not restrained by rationing or the need for
money (which does not exist in a communist economy), and therefore in theory
may consume or take whatever and as much as they want of the output of
society, they hold back voluntarily only by the (more or less internalised)
fear of losing the respect of their fellow citizens, and/or their
self-respect.
Another utopian novel is Voyage from Yesteryear by James P. Hogan (1982), where a robotic expedition arrives at the abundant and
pristine earth-like planet Chiron. The expedition has a cargo of the
necessary genetic material to “hatch” a new generation of humans. These
children grow up under benign robotic supervision, and – free from the
influence of any earthly society – spontaneously create a utopia without a
state, coercion, money, wages, formal authority and hierarchies. As opposed
to LeGuin’s utopia, this is a society with nearly
limitless abundance due to technology (robotics, tamed fusion energy) and a
low population in relation to the resource base. So what makes people behave
in Hogan’s utopia? Something similar
to that in LeGuin’s society: Respect and
self-respect. A second and much later wave of colonisers, this time
consisting of actual grown-up human beings with all the conventions and
hang-ups due to socialisation in a competitive capitalist society (Earth)
arrives on Chiron and is confronted with attitudes and values which they
simply do not grasp: “When in a store, and you don’t have to pay for
anything, why not grab all the attractive goods you can lay your hands on,
and come back for more?” “– You will
learn”, the Chironians reply, cryptically. And most
of the new colonisers do. The Chironians also have
an interesting “informal command structure”: Authority exists only to the
degree workers in a plant accept that a certain person aspiring to a leading
or coordinating role has the talent for this. If not, the person will simply
be disobeyed or ignored. But if the person is considered competent, her right
to take decisions on behalf of the collective is readily accepted, and
“orders” are loyally implemented.
With Marx and these books in mind, let us now discuss the material basis for
a(n) (at least “asymptotic”) utopia. What enables today’s high living
standards in industrialised countries (abstracting from exploitation of poor
countries and unsustainable use of the environment) is
- a high level of education,
- modern
infrastructure (communications and transportation),
- automated manufacturing, process industry, and
information-technology mediated services.
The last factor is underestimated and will
therefore be discussed. Let us begin with the question: What sort of work can
be automated, and what sort of work cannot – or should not – be automated? A
former Norwegian conservative prime minister once replied in an interview
that it was the government’s goal to “increase the productivity in our
day-care centres”, which demonstrates that he had not reflected much on this.
For work where people care for, teach or entertain other people must
necessarily remain labour-intensive, regardless of technological advances.
One should instead pose the question from another angle: Isn’t the point of
automation where it is technically possible and not detrimental to people or
the environment, to increase our capacity to “work” instead with and for each
other? Should not working with/for other human beings be less – not more –
“efficient” in a throughput sense? (“Work” is here placed in quotation marks
in the spirit of LeGuin). A future car assembly
plant, or a paper factory, or industrial cleaning, can be run with hardly any
staff. Such automation has no adverse side effects (cars or paper or floors
or other non-living things do not need human caring). The only argument for
upholding such jobs is in a type of society that cannot offer alternative
employment. But if “liberated” workers had (more) meaningful work to go to,
shedding workers because of automation would be just the way to go.
The future utopia then has a tiny workforce (a couple of per cent) in highly
automated and roboticised plants, churning out
manufactured consumption and investment goods, and processing raw materials
for inputs to other factories2. The public transport system is
also highly automated and (at least for the urban stretches) free. Over 90%
of the workforce is employed a few mandatory hours a day or per week (but if
they like they may of course work more – most work is play anyway) with jobs
consisting of interacting with other humans, or doing individual
creative-type work, which also cannot and should not be automated. Tasks are
- sports
- cultural
and creative activities
- media
- research
- teaching,
also in a wider sense: Mountain-climbing, horse riding, diving,
chess-playing
- day-care,
health services, care for the elderly – with a dramatically reduced
workload
All these services are cost-free for the
users.
Another type of task that also has a
limited potential for automation is working with non-human living organisms,
like in
- ecological
restoration
- ecological
agriculture, which will be more labour intensive than today’s
industrialised version
The reader may protest that not all of
these tasks are purely work/play in the LeGuinian
sense, but contain elements of drudgery. This is an important objection. In
spite of automation and information technology, some necessary work will –
due to its character – not change much, and remain boring or unpleasant. The
answer to this is (even) shorter mandatory working hours for such jobs, and
job rotation – which has merits in itself. In Marx’ words:
“In
communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each
can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the
general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today
and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear
cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without
ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.” (Marx, 1845).
A bit more prosaically one could say that
a small amount of drudgery (changing napkins in the nursing home) qualifies
for a lot of pure work/play (hiking in the bush with the kids).
Another objection is “why should people work
at all in/with factories and manufacturing plants when instead they can do
all this more meaningful and/or entertaining stuff?” The answer to this is
twofold:
- A
minority of people are deeply fascinated by tinkering with technical
processes, and gradually making them run even better. And they are not
very interested in interacting with people as the central point of their
job.
- Pride:
The select few that control the utopia’s manufacturing plants and
process industry are the persons enabling society as a whole to enjoy
its very high living standard. They know it, and the others know it too.
This utopian scenario assumes that there
is a reciprocal understanding and respect between the “producers” and
“non-producers” – an understanding that is lacking in today’s societies. In
the author’s Norwegian experience, debates on government budgets and
macroeconomic choices to a large degree take the form of an entrenched
conflict between two camps: The employers and some union leaders in the
“competitive private sector” emphasise that “the rest of society lives off
the values created here”, and therefore public sector spending and wages
should be curbed. Public sector union leaders on the other hand, hold that
spending should be based on “what is needed”, and their wages should track
those of industrial workers. They have little interest for or understanding
of the importance of an industry exposed to the efficiency demands of a world
market. This is a deadlock that could be ameliorated by discussing scenarios
of the type that is presented here.
The solution should be to get the “warring factions” to agree on the
following:
Automated
state-of-the-art manufacturing and process industry is a prerequisite for
affording a comprehensive free (public) service system. But manufacturing and
industry is not a goal in itself. A comprehensive free essential services
sector is the goal – automated
manufacturing is mainly a means.
(A note about the term “essential” used
here: The utopia is organised such that the type of private services which we
see on the rise today will not be very much in demand: Finance, security,
marketing, catering to the rich. These are here termed “non-essential”; see
also the section on the “dystopian scenario” below.)
Another issue that should be discussed in
the light of the utopian scenario, is whether a country today should
do something to uphold and develop manufacturing, or should it all be
outsourced to countries like for instance China. An argument in favour of
today’s trend is that these countries need to export to richer countries to
lift themselves out of poverty. And wages there will increase as they
develop, so these countries’ competitiveness will decrease correspondingly.
Then automated manufacturing may be revived in those of today’s importing
countries that temporarily gave it up for overblown non-essential service
like for instance finance, marketing and similar businesses. This is possibly
an acceptable strategy, but it is not at all publicly discussed today. Seen
in the time perspective suggested in this paper, it is self-evident that any
country that wants the type of near-utopian society that is sketched must
have its fair share of state-of-the-art automated manufacturing. Note also
that this implies a critique of today’s widely publicised opinion in academia
and among media pundits that western developed societies have reached an
advanced “post-industrial” stage. The reality is that these societies have
simply outsourced their manufacturing to countries with low wages.
The following should also be discussed in
connection with the utopian scenario: What is a “high living standard” and
does this not imply environmental damage? But work consisting of interacting
with other people is not ecologically unsustainable. “A high living standard”
in our context does not mean a large consumption of resources and energy, and
corresponding waste generation. The necessary energy may be generated from
renewable sources and through efficiency improvements, particularly in
end-uses. The feasibility of this even with today’s
technology has been demonstrated by – among others – Reddy, Goldemberg
and Johansson (1989). And with comprehensive
use of information technology and robotics, goods may be efficiently produced
and recycled, and waste minimised.
A final point in this section about a
long-term utopian scenario is “can we get there gradually”? Ignoring the
controversies on the political left about “reform versus revolution”, I will
here suggest that a modern market economy may (at least in theory, assuming
that persons/parties with the political will for it are in power) be
gradually changed in the direction of the utopia, by – among other things –
carefully selecting activities that are “ripe” for being made public and
cost-free for the users. Such selection can be done based on at least one of
the following criteria being fulfilled for the product or service in
question:
- Limitless
consumption is no problem, capacity- or environment-wise (example: local
phone calls, Internet access). (This is the sole – and therefore
unrealistic – premise of Marxian “higher-stage communism”.)
- Consumption
is due to its nature inherently limited or rationed (example: schools,
hospitals, funeral services, local public transport but not
long-distance travel).
- Neither,
but attitudes have changed, so that people voluntarily abstain from
over-consumption of a certain good/service.
By these criteria, a fair share of modern
industrialised societies are already somewhat “utopian” or “communist” (“ . .
. from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”), in
the sense that essential public services are free or with low fees (even if
there are forces at work trying to – and to some degree succeeding in –
rolling things back). This paper proposes that today’s developments should be
discussed and evaluated in the light of the long-term utopian (and
alternative dystopian – see below) scenario. If we do that, this gives an
extra argument for keeping services like health and schools free and in the
public sector, and this will then be an indicator that a society is advanced
and modern. Note that this contradicts the current conventional wisdom that
privatisation and “user pays” are signs of modernity.
Having an eye for the long term also gives an incentive to look for and
evaluate examples of already implemented “utopian” reforms in sectors where
they are the exception to the rule. An example is the Belgian city of Hasselt, which has made all public transport free3.
The third criterion is the most challenging (and interesting), because it
concerns change in public attitudes and behaviour. This is “LeGuinian internalisation”, so that citizens
automatically – without experiencing this as a “sacrifice” on their behalf
– restrain themselves. This is not something that could be implemented on a
significant scale today: Imagine an experiment where one made basic
foodstuffs free for the taking. Such a system would break down since a large
share of the population would over-consume and also throw away untouched or
half-eaten food. But an area, admittedly somewhat trivial, where voluntary
restraint works to a fair degree even today, is littering. A large share of
the population does not throw waste on the street, even if it would be more
convenient for them to do so. The “sacrifice” of taking the litter with you
for later appropriate disposal is not considered as such, because the action
is internalised and automatic. Most people also don’t leave their discarded TV
sets and washing machines at the roadside, even if that is more “convenient”
(and one can easily get away with it) than getting rid of such things in the
mandatory manner. Such altruistic behaviour may be the exception to the rule,
but gives grounds for optimism.
It gives support to those who hold that responsible socialisation of new
generations by schools, the media and in entertainment is not futile. Note
that this is not arguing the obvious, it is taking a position that is today
seen as outdated and futile among many intellectuals. I refer to the
eighties’ and especially nineties’ attitudes in advertising and entertainment
(and even “post-modernist” esthetic-academic
circles) – deriding enlightenment and the possibility of progress, and
cultivating violence, chaos and decay for “esthetic”
– or pecuniary – purposes. (A striking
example of this intellectual current of the nineties was reported in the
British newspaper The Independent 16 May 1995, where some TV commercials were
criticised. One used a teenage suicide as a vehicle to advertise a product.
Confronted with this the advertiser replied that this was not meant for the
public in general. The target group were those who were “nihilistic,
narcissistic and hedonistic”.) The last decade has seen an unusual alliance
between the powers that be (“there is no alternative”), and the
cultural/media avant-garde (“working for a better society is futile – and
since we can’t do anything about it anyway: isn’t today’s world fascinating in all its cruelty?”)
In the light of the above it seems that one must start from scratch again, to
restore the legitimacy of the view that socialisation towards responsible
behaviour in relation to one’s community is both necessary and feasible. And
this does not need to be promoted on moral or religious grounds – it may
(also or alternatively) be promoted on the basis of a long-range utopian
vision.
The (feasible) capitalist dystopia
A school in Marxism holds that capitalism cannot sustain itself indefinitely,
due to a system-inherent persistent decrease of the profit rate (Shaikh, 1978, pp 232 - 235): Capitalists have to
substitute workers with machines to keep up with the competition, whether
they want to or not. This will increase their capital and mercilessly reduce
their profit rate in the long run. Following this logic, as production
becomes possible with only a small number of workers, conditions for creation
of surplus value, exploitation and capital accumulation gradually wither.
There is also a related Marxist argument that since only “productive” workers
create “value”, and most service and/or public sector work is considered
non-productive, a completely service-dominated capitalist economy cannot
uphold capital accumulation. There are, however, contradictions among Marxists
(and in Marx’ own writings) about how to define what is “productive” work.
(Hunt, 1979).
Regardless of these theories and positions, I will argue that there is
a feasible scenario for viable “eternal” and strongly class-stratified
capitalism – even when production is comprehensively automated. Such a future
seems the more probable since it may be seen as an extrapolation of current
trends. This dystopian society has the major share of its workers doing wage
labour in capitalist service/servant (“s/s”) firms. Such activity is
labour-intensive, and with low capital intensity. I use the term “servant”
here to indicate the presence of firms catering to the rich – such as
domestic help, leisure activities, security, luxury tourism, etc. This comes
on top of (mostly privatised) services for the general population like
(health)care, education, entertainment, media – which are also
labour-intensive activities A small
minority of workers (just as in the utopian scenario above) is employed in
the high-tech automated manufacturing and process industry sector. As long as
a major share of the employed is in labour-intensive activities, this will
ensure that the profit rate can be upheld, even if manufacturing is nearly
wholly automated. And the profit rate in the highly automated manufacturing
sector will be equalised with that of the s/s sector through the price
mechanism. A large share of the population is unemployed, which ensures
compliant labourers and high profit rates.
The prospect of chronic and very high unemployment in a capitalist future
world is something that is not only described by critics of capitalist
globalisation. It is considered natural or unavoidable by some far-seeing
thinkers among the elite. Martin and Schumann (1997) report from a conference
of the world’s most powerful in late September 1995:
. . . 500 leading politicians, businessmen and scientists from every
continent – a new ‘global brains trust’ . . . which is supposed to point the
way to the ‘new civilization’ of the twenty-first century.
From this point on [in the
meeting], the top-class group discussing ‘the future of work’ concerns itself
entirely with those who will have none [this future scenario, having been
launched at the conference, had an 80% unemployment rate].
The expression on everyone’s
lips is Zbigniew Brzezinski’s
‘tittytainment’. The old Polish-born warhorse, who
was Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser for four years, has continued to
occupy himself with geostrategic questions. He
thinks of ‘tittytainment’ (‘tits’ plus
‘entertainment’) in terms not so much of sex as of the milk flowing from a
nursing mother’s breast. Perhaps a mixture of deadening entertainment and
adequate nourishment will keep the world’s frustrated population in
relatively good spirits. Top managers soberly discuss the possible dosage and
consider how the affluent fifth will be able to occupy the superfluous rest.
The pressure of global competition is such that they think it unreasonable to
expect a social commitment from individual businesses. Someone else will have
to look after the unemployed.”
A future world with 80% unemployment seems
unrealistic. But the point of the above is that the world’s power elites are
willing to accept such scenarios and prepare for them. Based on today’s
trends, it seems more probable that employment will be higher, but in a
dominant low-wage and very insecure s/s-sector.
Investors are especially eager to take over such activities that have until
now been in the public domain. Critics of this have to a large degree explained
this trend as being “ideology-driven”, i.e. that it is due to a strong neoliberal belief among decision makers that these
activities will be run much more efficiently if privatised.
I suggest instead that the reasons are mainly material, not ideological.
Consider these special characteristics of public sectors like health, caring,
education:
- They
are – as opposed to other non-essential services – socially necessary so
they will always be in demand.
- The
costs will therefore at least to some degree be covered by the state.
- These
services will be locally and predictably demanded , sales are not
dependent on success in a risky world market.
- They
are inherently labour-intensive and cannot be automated.
These characteristics make investment
especially attractive, the first three obviously so. The fourth
characteristic may at first glance seem not to fit, since capitalists will
always try to shed workers to reduce costs. So why is it attractive to enter
a field where there are few possibilities for this? The keywords are
“inherently” and “cannot”. These services will be in demand, and they cannot
be much automated. When these are stable and lasting conditions for all
competing firms in the field, the inherent labour intensity becomes an advantage,
not a drawback. For when a large share of capitalists’ costs are for wages,
and a small share for capital, the possibilities for significantly enhancing
profits by a given percentage reduction of wage costs are greater than in a
highly automated plant where capital costs dominate and wage costs are
minimal. That said, the capitalist dystopia would also ensure acceptable and
stable profits for the owners of capital-intensive automated plants, via the
price mechanism: If profitability becomes low, plants will shut down and
production will decrease. Demand for scarce goods will lead to increased
prices, until the profit rate equals that in the s/s sector. The distribution
of output between owners and workers in the large labour-intensive s/s sector
– which depends on the balance of power between these two groups – then sets
a benchmark for the profit rate for the economy as a whole. Hence, as long as
there are plenty of workers employed by capitalists – regardless of this
being in so-called non-productive jobs – strongly class-stratified and
profitable capitalism may continue forever.
Conclusions
Long-term and even “unrealistic” scenarios for future societies ought to be
regular topics for public debate. Both positive and negative scenarios are
useful. Dissemination and discussion of such scenarios will have positive
impact on important political choices and decisions being made today. Contrarily, lack of such visions and
discussions have detrimental effects.
One should be unafraid and confident about launching and supporting
unconventional proposals or visions. For the mechanism of self-fulfilling
prophecies is at work, for good or bad. One should work for awareness of this
among those controlling the arenas for public discourse. Based on the
recognition of this mechanism, one may argue that unconventional ideas should
not be disparaged out of hand, but be given a fair chance in the media and
elsewhere to compete with established thought.
Capitalism should not be considered a “stage in history” by its critics, but
a system that may continue forever. Here it would appear that there is an
element of agreement between critics and supporters (one of the latter is
Francis Fukuyama with his “end of history”). The difference however, is in
the analysis of the probable characteristics of such a system, and whether
there are better alternatives.
Notes
1. In Proceedings of the 5th Path to Full Employment Conference and the 10th
National Conference on Unemployment, Newcastle, Australia, December 10-12, 2003
– slightly revised here.
2. There are
also service sector jobs that can and should be automated – examples of this
are the ATM and Internet banking, reducing the need for banking personnel dramatically.
So “automated manufacturing” in this paper should be interpreted in a wide
sense, also incorporating a part of service sector activity.
3. See
http://www.ils.nrw.de/netz/leda/database/cities/city0100.htm
References
Hogan, J. P. (1982), ‘Voyage from Yesteryear’, Baen
Books; Reprint edition 1999.
Hunt, E. K. (1979), ‘The categories of productive and unproductive labor in marxist economic
theory’, Science and Society, Vol. 43(3).
LeGuin, U. K. (1974), ‘The Dispossessed’, Eos; Reprint
edition 1994.
Martin, H. P. and Schumann, H. (1997) ‘The Global Trap: Globalization and the
Assault on Prosperity and Democracy’, Zed Books.
Marx, K (1875), ‘Critique of the Gotha
Programme’, Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume Three, Progress
Publishers, Moscow 1970.
Marx, K (1845), ‘The German Ideology: Part I’, The Marx-Engels reader, New York : Norton, 1972.
Reddy, A.K.N., Goldemberg,
J., Johansson, T.B. (1989) ‘Energy for a
Sustainable World’, John Wiley &
Sons
Shaikh, A. (1978) ‘ An introduction to the history
of crisis theories’. In U.S. Capitalism in Crisis. New York: Union for
Radical Political Economics.
trond.andresen@itk.ntnu.no
______________________________
SUGGESTED CITATION:
Trond Andresen, “Two Feasible Future Scenarios: A
high-tech Utopia and a high-tech Dystopia ”, post-autistic
economics review, issue no. 25, 18 May 2004, pp. 8-15, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue25/Andresen25.htm
|