Two feasible
Future Scenarios:
A high-tech Utopia – and a high-tech Dystopia
Trond Andresen trond.andresen@itk.ntnu.no
(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).
Also in the Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 25., May 2004,
and in "Real World Economics: A Post-autistic Economics Reader" , Edward Fullbrook (editor), Anthem Press, 2007
Abstract
Two different far future scenarios
are discussed: Both have a highly automated manufacturing sector with a small
workforce, and a large labour-intensive service sector. The first, “utopian”
scenario is inspired by the Marxian vision, with some important modifications: Limits
to consumption still exist, certain goods and services are still exchanged in a
market. It is argued that the Marxian utopia is a useful “asymptote” to strive
for, even if it can never be reached.
The second, “dystopian” scenario has few workers in manufacturing just like the
first. Manufacturing, and the much larger service/servant sector is run on
authoritarian capitalist lines. It is argued that profit rates can be sustained
indefinitely in such an economy. The current worldwide attempts from corporations
to take over service activities that have until now been in the public sector
domain is discussed in the light of this.
1. Introduction
The current
political and ideological climate does not encourage 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 realised. 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 dimishing 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 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 the
unemployeds’ disadvantage. 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 civilisation 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.
2. 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 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 realised 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 alle 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 has 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 governments 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 instead “work” 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
which 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
factories[1].
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.
Other
tasks that also has a limited potential for automation is working with
non-human living organisms, like in
• ecological restoration
• ecological agriculure, 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 contains 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 at all work in/with factories and manufacturing
plants when they instead can do all this more meaningful and/or entertaining
stuff?” The answer to this is twofold:
• A minority of people is 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 is 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:
1. 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”.)
2. Consumption is due to its nature inherently limited or rationed
(example: schools, hospitals, funeral services, local public transport but not
long-distance travel).
3. 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
free[2].
The
third criterion is the most challenging (and interesting), because it concerns
change in public attitudes and behaviour. This is “LeGuinian internalisation”,
so that 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
avantgarde (“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 based on a long-range utopian vision.
3. The (feasible) capitalist
dystopia
A
school in Marxism holds that capitalism cannot sustain 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, T.A.], 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, T.A.].
.....
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:
1. They are – as opposed to other and non-essential services – socially
necessary so they will always be in demand.
2. The costs will therefore at least to some degree be covered by the
state.
3. These services will be locally and predictably demanded , sales are
not dependent on success in a risky world market.
4. 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 not seem to fit
this, 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 will 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.
4. 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. In this there will then seemingly be an 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.
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.
[1]
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.
[2] See http://www.ils.nrw.de/netz/leda/database/cities/city0100.htm