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 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,
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
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
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.
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