Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Srnicek, Nick; Williams, Alex: Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work

Srnicek, Nick; Williams, Alex: Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work This book attempts to provide a legible map from today’s leftist politics to a leisurely and equitable utopia. The authors Williams and Srnicek are lecturers in the departments of sociology and international politics of City University of London, with previous publications regarding capitalism, the role of technology and generating social change. Their latest book Inventing the Future: Post-Capitalism and a World Without Work (Verso 2015) is a manifesto, outlining political pathways for the unemployed to take power, and relieve themselves from the pressure to produce and search for salaried work. The trend of automation in production, the authors argue, is a threat to employment rates that can be turned into a boon with right conditioning; robots take work off from the shoulders of people, if only those left unemployed can secure their own sustenance with a policy of universal basic income.This agenda is perhaps not a particularly innovative one, but much of the book is dedicated to the political tactics labor can implement to demand this agenda. Sizing up the current political playing field, the authors classify mainstream Leftist parties as social democrats, begrudgingly accommodating to neoliberal ideas and nostalgic for the Keynesian-corporatist 50s. They suggest that mainstream leftists no longer have daring progressive visions for the future.Many disillusioned leftist voters have gravitated towards ‘folk politics’, a term the authors have coined here to refer to a current trend in political common sense of how to organize, act and think politics. Folk politics are based on localism, which is not the issue - all political movements start locally. The problem, in their view, is that folk political movements refuse to go beyond the local. In the face of abstract complex forces such as globalized capitalism, folk political movements simplify issues to a human scale. Their emphasis on empathy produces solutions that have good intentions but poor impacts. Their insistence on direct democracy suffers from unreliable engagement. In the face of the expansionary nature of cumulative capitalism, the authors argue, segregated movements of folk politics do not have what it takes to supersede.The slow food movement, for example, seeks to solve the ecological injustices in the global food chain by encouraging people to eat local agricultural products. Unfortunately, it is complicated and time consuming to source all your food locally, and most people are inevitably influenced by the system that gives them cheaper products flown over from another country. Therefore, the authors argue, local responses are not enough; activists need to politically attack the origin of systemic pressure.Plagued by the weakness of folk politics, any successes achieved by social movements today are, “confined within the hegemonic terms established by neoliberalism (and) market-centered claims (p. 19).” Neoliberals achieved hegemony by deliberately funding and promoting their ideas. The left, they argue, needs to imitate these methods, and build their own hegemony via research centers and educational materials on ‘post-capitalism.’ Why ‘post’? The authors give plenty of reasons to move beyond capitalism as it functions today: the precarious mass of under- and unemployed for whom enough jobs simply cannot be created in the recovery from economic busts, who are displaced and gather in urban slums across the world.Post-capitalism, as the authors envision it, looks like full unemployment; a world where much work is automated and most people cannot find full-time jobs. Saving the world from low-income struggles are two policies: a shorter working week that would increase wages and a universal basic income that would provide a sufficient stipend for every individual to live on. Individuals would finally have the self-determination to nurture other sources of meaning in their lives besides salaried work, such as political engagement, community activities, and studying. The cultural transformation that we need to make this possible is to end the work ethic: the definition of identity and personal value by work. The social democratic parties that have wanted to save ‘labor’ and ‘the working class’ need to realize that imposing employment just moves individuals from a poverty trap to a monotony trap.The authors are right to acknowledge the history of weak social democracy that has disillusioned progressive voters. This acknowledgement will ring true to a reader that has noticed the rise of extreme right parties across the Western world that has only intensified since the book’s publication. The mainstream left is not offering a clear solution for those disenfranchised by globalized capitalism. The authors suggest that some of the rising far left parties, such as Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece could become engines for such solutions, as their populist rhetoric brings together the diverse demographics of those likely to be left unemployed.The identification of folk politics as an ineffective political common sense is both the book’s greatest strength and weakness. The authors can be applauded for appropriately coining a name for the contemporary political trend of localism as a solution in and of itself, and the various values of horizontalism, nostalgia, resistance and withdrawal that accompany it. Residents across the UK can send out protests tweets and mobilise to save local hospitals, but these efforts are overwhelmed by political plans to defund the National Health Service. This explains why leftist movements are unable to gain the significant momentum to prevent the ills they respond to. Remembering the inadequacies of folk politics, any engagé citizen or budding community can see how to construct a more effective direction for action. Is your NGO giving a man a fish, or calling for the state to teach sustainable fishing in public schools?And yet, if Williams and Srnicek are right, and folk politics are a historically constructed common sense, formed by the disillusioned leftist voters who know the corruption of past unions and parties, then what? It is not very clear how to persuade a folk political thinker, such as a buyer of ‘slow food’, that agriculture is more complex than “local good, global bad.” You can provide people with evidence that folk politics is ineffective, but restoring their faith in systematic organization will require a cultural shift in how people think politics. And sure, that cultural shift can begin in universities and books like this one, but it took 50 years for neoliberals to establish hegemony that way. Global threats such as climate change or rise of fascism are advancing faster than that.Though these post-capitalists have good critiques of our time, their vision of the future is neither inventive nor complete. The authors’ call for full automation and universal basic income is not particularly new. As the authors acknowledge, Nixon and Carter argued for a similar policy path. We have envisioned a technological utopia of robot kitchens since the 50s, and it is not quite here yet. Still, many minds of Silicone Valley have already called for a universal basic income, as they claim their inventions will continue to take work away from humans; even the complex decision making jobs we now consider highly skilled. What the authors add to this argument is a nuanced view on labor and technology. They suggest ways in which laborers can control the direction of technological development for their benefit, rather than their own exploitation. For example, the state is already an influential investor in research and development, and could become a mechanism for democratic control of the pursuit of technological invention.Many of the issues that the authors fail to address are due to their focus on labor. The book only has the spare mention here or there of ‘post-carbon economy’ or ‘climate change’, and does not thoroughly discuss the ecological limits of their post-capitalist world. What is more, there are other roles that technology could play in the post-capitalist scenario they are suggesting, such as the use of social media in coordinating political movement, or direct democracy through digital engagement and voting. These are not explored.The argument for this particular agenda of policies and political means to their implementation is ambitious, radical, and promising, but for the authors to use such a term as ‘post-capitalism’ suggests a much wider vision than what is elaborated in this text. ‘Post-labor’ would be more appropriate. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Basic Income Studies de Gruyter

Srnicek, Nick; Williams, Alex: Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work

VerKamp, Anya
Basic Income Studies , Volume 12 (1): 1 – Jun 14, 2017
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/srnicek-nick-williams-alex-inventing-the-future-postcapitalism-and-a-xdnAIqusC4
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
ISSN
1932-0183
eISSN
1932-0183
DOI
10.1515/bis-2017-0012
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This book attempts to provide a legible map from today’s leftist politics to a leisurely and equitable utopia. The authors Williams and Srnicek are lecturers in the departments of sociology and international politics of City University of London, with previous publications regarding capitalism, the role of technology and generating social change. Their latest book Inventing the Future: Post-Capitalism and a World Without Work (Verso 2015) is a manifesto, outlining political pathways for the unemployed to take power, and relieve themselves from the pressure to produce and search for salaried work. The trend of automation in production, the authors argue, is a threat to employment rates that can be turned into a boon with right conditioning; robots take work off from the shoulders of people, if only those left unemployed can secure their own sustenance with a policy of universal basic income.This agenda is perhaps not a particularly innovative one, but much of the book is dedicated to the political tactics labor can implement to demand this agenda. Sizing up the current political playing field, the authors classify mainstream Leftist parties as social democrats, begrudgingly accommodating to neoliberal ideas and nostalgic for the Keynesian-corporatist 50s. They suggest that mainstream leftists no longer have daring progressive visions for the future.Many disillusioned leftist voters have gravitated towards ‘folk politics’, a term the authors have coined here to refer to a current trend in political common sense of how to organize, act and think politics. Folk politics are based on localism, which is not the issue - all political movements start locally. The problem, in their view, is that folk political movements refuse to go beyond the local. In the face of abstract complex forces such as globalized capitalism, folk political movements simplify issues to a human scale. Their emphasis on empathy produces solutions that have good intentions but poor impacts. Their insistence on direct democracy suffers from unreliable engagement. In the face of the expansionary nature of cumulative capitalism, the authors argue, segregated movements of folk politics do not have what it takes to supersede.The slow food movement, for example, seeks to solve the ecological injustices in the global food chain by encouraging people to eat local agricultural products. Unfortunately, it is complicated and time consuming to source all your food locally, and most people are inevitably influenced by the system that gives them cheaper products flown over from another country. Therefore, the authors argue, local responses are not enough; activists need to politically attack the origin of systemic pressure.Plagued by the weakness of folk politics, any successes achieved by social movements today are, “confined within the hegemonic terms established by neoliberalism (and) market-centered claims (p. 19).” Neoliberals achieved hegemony by deliberately funding and promoting their ideas. The left, they argue, needs to imitate these methods, and build their own hegemony via research centers and educational materials on ‘post-capitalism.’ Why ‘post’? The authors give plenty of reasons to move beyond capitalism as it functions today: the precarious mass of under- and unemployed for whom enough jobs simply cannot be created in the recovery from economic busts, who are displaced and gather in urban slums across the world.Post-capitalism, as the authors envision it, looks like full unemployment; a world where much work is automated and most people cannot find full-time jobs. Saving the world from low-income struggles are two policies: a shorter working week that would increase wages and a universal basic income that would provide a sufficient stipend for every individual to live on. Individuals would finally have the self-determination to nurture other sources of meaning in their lives besides salaried work, such as political engagement, community activities, and studying. The cultural transformation that we need to make this possible is to end the work ethic: the definition of identity and personal value by work. The social democratic parties that have wanted to save ‘labor’ and ‘the working class’ need to realize that imposing employment just moves individuals from a poverty trap to a monotony trap.The authors are right to acknowledge the history of weak social democracy that has disillusioned progressive voters. This acknowledgement will ring true to a reader that has noticed the rise of extreme right parties across the Western world that has only intensified since the book’s publication. The mainstream left is not offering a clear solution for those disenfranchised by globalized capitalism. The authors suggest that some of the rising far left parties, such as Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece could become engines for such solutions, as their populist rhetoric brings together the diverse demographics of those likely to be left unemployed.The identification of folk politics as an ineffective political common sense is both the book’s greatest strength and weakness. The authors can be applauded for appropriately coining a name for the contemporary political trend of localism as a solution in and of itself, and the various values of horizontalism, nostalgia, resistance and withdrawal that accompany it. Residents across the UK can send out protests tweets and mobilise to save local hospitals, but these efforts are overwhelmed by political plans to defund the National Health Service. This explains why leftist movements are unable to gain the significant momentum to prevent the ills they respond to. Remembering the inadequacies of folk politics, any engagé citizen or budding community can see how to construct a more effective direction for action. Is your NGO giving a man a fish, or calling for the state to teach sustainable fishing in public schools?And yet, if Williams and Srnicek are right, and folk politics are a historically constructed common sense, formed by the disillusioned leftist voters who know the corruption of past unions and parties, then what? It is not very clear how to persuade a folk political thinker, such as a buyer of ‘slow food’, that agriculture is more complex than “local good, global bad.” You can provide people with evidence that folk politics is ineffective, but restoring their faith in systematic organization will require a cultural shift in how people think politics. And sure, that cultural shift can begin in universities and books like this one, but it took 50 years for neoliberals to establish hegemony that way. Global threats such as climate change or rise of fascism are advancing faster than that.Though these post-capitalists have good critiques of our time, their vision of the future is neither inventive nor complete. The authors’ call for full automation and universal basic income is not particularly new. As the authors acknowledge, Nixon and Carter argued for a similar policy path. We have envisioned a technological utopia of robot kitchens since the 50s, and it is not quite here yet. Still, many minds of Silicone Valley have already called for a universal basic income, as they claim their inventions will continue to take work away from humans; even the complex decision making jobs we now consider highly skilled. What the authors add to this argument is a nuanced view on labor and technology. They suggest ways in which laborers can control the direction of technological development for their benefit, rather than their own exploitation. For example, the state is already an influential investor in research and development, and could become a mechanism for democratic control of the pursuit of technological invention.Many of the issues that the authors fail to address are due to their focus on labor. The book only has the spare mention here or there of ‘post-carbon economy’ or ‘climate change’, and does not thoroughly discuss the ecological limits of their post-capitalist world. What is more, there are other roles that technology could play in the post-capitalist scenario they are suggesting, such as the use of social media in coordinating political movement, or direct democracy through digital engagement and voting. These are not explored.The argument for this particular agenda of policies and political means to their implementation is ambitious, radical, and promising, but for the authors to use such a term as ‘post-capitalism’ suggests a much wider vision than what is elaborated in this text. ‘Post-labor’ would be more appropriate.

Journal

Basic Income Studies – de Gruyter

Published: Jun 14, 2017

There are no references for this article.