Tim’s Thoughts
Jason Hickel’s explanation makes it sound like “The West” is running a pyramid scheme by outsourcing to the “Global South.” But the Global South has no one to outsource their labor to. Perhaps the West does not care, but this fact poses a problem with those who declare that Western Capitalism is a Universal solution.
A similar scenario played out in the “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip, when Calvin created a duplicate of himself so that it could do his unwanted homework. The problem was that Calvin’s duplicate didn’t want to do the homework either!
Calvin Outsources his Labor to a Duplicate Calvin
Calvin & Hobbes audio comic: original by Bill Waterson
History of Capitalism & Enclosure
On the subject of the history of “enclosure” of the commons, I had heard of “enclosure” and the black death, but I had not heard capitalism described as a backlash against the revolutions that succeeded in destroying feudalism, after the black death reduced the number of workers.
Talk of Technofeudalism1 makes me concerned the elite may be attempting to repeat something like the “enclosure movement,” this time using:
ELSEWHERE:
> Why all countries can’t be like the Scandinavian Social Democracies
Contents
00:00:00 Is Capitalism Destroying Democracy?
00:03:30 Jason Hickel's Journey and the Origins of Capitalism
00:08:29 Why Anti-Capitalist Protests Haven't Delivered Change
00:11:29 How Capitalism Corrupts Democracy
00:17:40 Why Governments No Longer Invest in Public Needs
00:21:58 Is China Offering an Alternative to Western Capitalism?
00:31:46 The Hidden Cost of Scandinavian Social Democracy
00:36:26 Is the Free Market Really Democratic?
00:43:17 Are We Entering a New Age of Tech Feudalism?
00:47:08 Can Degrowth Solve Capitalism's Problems?
00:51:39 Should We Tax the Rich at 100%?
00:58:09 How Do We Take Back Power From Capitalism?
Chapter 7: The Hidden Cost of Scandinavian Social Democracy
In terms of the Scandinavian model, I think a lot of people look at that and think, why can’t this be just be the solution for everybody, right? But it’s got a it’s got a major flaw at its heart. It’s um it’s social democracy.
And what social democracy is defined by is it’s it remains a capitalist system where production is mostly controlled by capital. Not all, of course. which is much more public control over production but mostly controlled by capital with the objective of maximizing profits. On the other hand, you also have strong public services, decent wages for the working class, strong labor rights, things like that. And so it looks like the best of both worlds, you know, so we can have capitalism but with a human face, right? Um but the reality here is that look, capital requires cheap labor and cheap resources in order to maximize profits. requires that the kinds of demands the kinds of concessions that have been made to the working classes in Scandinavia uh would under normal conditions be enough to bring capitalism to its knees, right? It would just not be able to continue to maximize profits in the same way. Um except for the fact that they have the benefits of the imperial privilege and so they use an extraordinary amount of cheap labor and cheap resources from the rest of the world from the from the periphery. And so they’ve effectively like I mean they have very high levels of consumption and income. Where does that come from? not it’s not domestically produced is it? Uh they benefit massively from what scholars call unequal exchange with the um with the with the global south. And this is this is documented in several recent empirical studies. Um and so look uh I think that that’s not that’s clearly not a model that can be universalized because if you’re in the periphery of the world system, you don’t have the benefit of having a periphery to exploit. And so um and so for those systems, the capitalist class faces a very difficult problem. Uh right, think about it. In Norway, if you’re a capitalist, your workers are making demands for better wages and healthcare, etc., etc., you can concede to those demands and get your cheap labor elsewhere. If you’re a capitalist in the periphery, there’s no elsewhere, right?
Uh you can’t concede to the demands. And so, what is your option? Some kind of violent repression of those demands, right? Child labor. Yeah. For example. And so, and to me, this is one of the reasons why in the global south, we find uh which is I mean mostly is overwhelmingly capitalist, right? we find um violent repression of of social movements of trade unionists I mean will often get murdered uh environmental defenders uh etc etc I mean huge amounts of violence against against protest against protesters um and I mean in my in my home country of Esatini there’s there’s violence against trade unionists and protesters all the time to the point where that’s just completely politically frozen right why is that is because they have no alternative if you’re going to be a capitalist society you have no alternative but to suppress these demands And so when people look around the world and they’re like, “Oh, but the West’s, you know, they’re such a peaceful society with lots of nice human rights.” Great. The global south, look how corrupt and violent they are. The reason is because this is one capitalist economy, right? One capitalist world economy. Uh where the violence is outsourced to the periphery. That pressure is placed on the periphery so that it is not in the core, right? Uh and so in the core the capital capital has the benefits of making concessions and everything seems fine because the violence happens somewhere else. Um it happens in the in the mines of Congo, right? It happens in the mountains of uh of the Andes. It happens in the forests of Indonesia. That’s where the violence happens. You don’t see it in Finland or in the green and pleasant hills of England. Um and so I think we have to be clear about th those contradictions. And this is why, you know, for for the global south, certainly um if you want to be able to resolve these contradictions, you need to move in a much more socialist direction. Uh you’re going to have to deal with an economy that does not require constant capital accumulation. You have to break from that system in order to reclaim control over production, organize it around human needs directly without this contradiction of capital needs to maximize profits, but that’s in contradiction to uh to workers needs and to the needs of ecology and to land defenders and so on. Um, as far as the global north goes, I think our position here has to be look, uh, social democracy is unacceptable. To the extent that it’s going to rely on exploitation in the global south, we can’t have that. We can’t accept that. Um, our position has to be an anti-imperialist position. We have to reject that exploitation. We cannot live on the blood of Congalese children. Uh, and so our our economic system is going to have to grapple with that reality. And if that means that the profits of our big tech companies diminish, right? uh and we have to organize production differently to make sure that people’s needs can be met uh without cap massive levels of capital accumulation then that’s what we have to do.
Um let me ask you about the defenders of uh free markets. So uh Milton Freriedman himself argues in capitalism and freedom
Chapter 8: Is the Free Market Really Democratic?
that the market is actually more democratic than politics that instead of voting once every four years you’re voting with your wallet every single day. Something you alluded to earlier on in our conversation. Every coffee you buy, every Tesla you don’t buy, etc. for every subscription you cancel. Um, these signals obviously happen a thousand times a day and prices adjust to reflect that. It’s the so-called invisible hand of Adam Smith. What do you say to those who argue that intervening in markets disrupts this delicate balance of the invisible hand?
I mean, first of all, completely reject what Milton Friedman has to say on this.
If this is your definition of democracy where where billionaires get like tens of thousands times more voting power right over everyday decision over over the shape of the economy than ordinary people who have very little surplus to spend in disposable expenditures this is not the kind of democracy I want to live in and this is what’s taught as uh mainstream economic theory here here right I mean you’re you teach here as well but uh right if students are studying economics today this is a core tenate
100% yeah 100% and um and I think it’s it’s just completely wrong uh like uh when it comes to the question of economic of economic democracy what is real economic democracy is where we have we have democratic control over our own labor and production I mean that would be real democracy so so imagine uh like having a private firm but with worker control that’s democracy that’s democracy this This is an amazing example of um of a of a of a company in Italy that was producing uh cars or parts for cars at least. At some point the prof the the company became unprofitable and so uh the the owner shuttered it and fired all the workers and the workers came back and they they opened the factory and they started and they and they collectively started producing uh things like parts for bikes and solar panels and things like that. Things they felt their their society actually needed more than than parts for SUVs. Um, and this is an example of how when workers control production, they can determine the objectives of production. What does our society actually need? What do we want to spend our labor doing? Right? Uh, for a long time, I worked in construction. Um, obviously for a capitalist firm, I I was not part of a union, had zero rights.
Um, and uh, and it was terrible because we spent our days doing backbreaking labor, uh, building mansions for rich people. And I kept thinking like and we’re all working I mean I’m not from a working-class family but my my colleagues obviously were and I kept thinking like this is uh it’s crazy you know that that the working classes are spending their days and our plan resources building mansions for the rich when we could be building affordable housing for ordinary people you know like if we had control over production then we could make those decisions and we could resolve our problems like that um and so I think that’s what real democracy would look like in the economy. And I think Milton Friedman is is obiscating. I mean, he’s trying to justify a system that is deeply inequitable uh um by calling it a democracy when it’s very palpably not. That’s the reality. I think it comes down to investment, too, right? Like if you’re a billionaire, if you own an investment firm, then you can you can channel just insane amounts of our surplus to do whatever you want, right?
You get to do that. Do we as individuals have the power to do that? No. Right? I mean, can I mobilize production to open new factories and produce whatever I want? No, I don’t have that kind of power. Billionaires have that kind of power. So, so, uh, to draw some kind of comparison here is just crazy. And, and what we need is, is is more democratic alignment for our investment system so that the surplus that we produce, we can have some kind of democratic say in how it gets invested, what it produces, and who benefits from it. So would that look like sort of mini governments within each company? Just so I can understand what it means concretely for workers to have a say over their means of production and you know would there be a risk that you know some people only want to work two days a week. Some people are like well we need to be working four days a week or 5 days a week. like how do you resolve the tensions even amongst the workers over those things?
It’s fairly straightforward actually.
So, um for examples, I mean, there’s actually existing firms like this in our in our own economy. For example um in Spain there’s a company called Mandreon in fact I think it’s one of the biggest companies in Spain and it’s a workerrun company worker owned and worker run and it’s actually it’s really interesting of course I mean they have their own flaws as a result of operating in a capitalist system where they they come under competitive pressures that they have to resist and so on um but if you look at the way that that um that the yields that the surpluses shared
Chapter 9: Are We Entering a New Age of Tech Feudalism?
it’s really remarkable because they have extremely low levels of inequality inside the workplace, right? And so workers get to get to collectively decide. I mean I mean first of all they get to elect their managers. Think about that.
Um and so if if you have a toxic of a boss, imagine having the power to remove him, you know.
Uh so that’s I mean that itself would make your life so much better for vast majority of people outtheres. Would make their lives so much better to have some kind of say in like I don’t have to suffer under this under this douchebag, right?
um but also just the the determination of wage levels. And so they get to decide, okay, I mean, if you’re going to be a manager, then you deserve to have some more because you’re taking on higher level of risk and more responsibility, etc. Um but should it be 500 times more than the cleaner makes? No. That’s crazy. And so they could decide that collectively and they come up with ratios like 1:4, 1:6.
Um so still there’s like a deliberation about a reward that doesn’t mean everyone by default gets the same thing but certainly means that this is a conversation people get to have. Uh so I mean to the question of can a company function under these conditions. I mean we have examples of companies that do function under these conditions and and I think that can be very very inspiring. Another example of course is Yugoslavia which was a a market socialist economy that’s um where where production was controlled by workers you know and and if you talk to many Yugoslavs today or people from the former Yugoslavia they look back on that time with nostalgia right compared to the the situation that many of them have to live in today. Um so yeah I think that there’s interesting experiments that we can look at as different ways of organizing our economy. Right now, many people are speculating that our economy is starting to resemble a new kind of feudalism. That’s a word that we hear quite often. Some trace that back to 2016, the World Economic Forum essay titled Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better. Which of course recently resurfaced in the WF video a few years ago with a line, you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy, which was uh very viral, not least because it sounded deeply terrifying. Yeah. Um the economist Janis Varafakis calls what we’re seeing now technofudalism. a world with a a shrinking number of uh landlords, whether that’s your actual landlords or the sort of tech platforms profiting from our data and attention who control everything.
Um how does the economic system today compare to feudalism?
I think that Giannis is actually correct in his analysis that’s I mean that’s uh like the like cloud capital has some feudal characteristics. What I think is important though is to recognize that um that we are still very much in capitalism and that these dynamics are actually an outflow of capitalism, not a departure from capitalism, right? Capitalism actually seeks these kinds of monopolies. Capital seeks monopolies. This is so important to understand.
There’s a tendency uh in capital toward monopolization because remember like under capitalism production is organized around maximizing profits. Um now there’s two ways to do that. One way is to suppress your input costs, finding cheaper labor, etc., etc. Maybe investing in technology that removes uh labor requirements. Um, and the other is to increase the sales price. Now, increasing the sales price is really difficult in a situation where you have competitive pressures. Okay? And so, what capital actually prefers is monopoly, where they don’t have competitive pressures. And this is why you see this tendency towards monopolization uh in capitalism because that’s in the interest of capital. um Coke buying Pepsi for example. Yeah. [laughter]
And so uh and so I think we have to understand that like despite these very disturbing tendencies we can see in cloud capital this is capitalism that we’re in. This is this is the denima of capitalism right not something else.
Chapter 10: Can Degrowth Solve Capitalism’s Problems?
In terms of the relationship between capitalism and feudalism the history of this is actually really fascinating. We have to understand like in the long 16th century well I mean the history goes back earlier in fact uh during the feudal era in England which is a brutal terrible arrangements right with massive exploitation uh there there were worker revolutions against that um that effectively succeeded after the black death succeeded in basically abolishing surfom and feudalism and in the place of that after the 1350s uh they established a much more egalitarian society with much more democratic control over resources and production.
Uh and what’s interesting is that the elite class at that time, the deposed feudal lords were very upset about this. The historical record is full of them complaining about, oh, the the workers and the peasants, they dress nicely and they eat well and it’s like offending our sensibilities. You can’t distinguish a lord from a peasant anymore because they wear nice robes and so on. And they just couldn’t abide this, right? Um and so and so and so actually the um the response on the parts of the elites was enclosure, kicking the peasants off the land, restricting their access to the commons, uh turning them into impoverished wage laborers. And that was the origin of capitalism actually. This enclosure of the land into elite control, the dispossession of the vast majority of the population. Capitalism historically was a backlash against the revolutions that succeeded in destroying feudalism. It was a way of of reimposing the hierarchies that the former feudal class enjoyed and those hierarchies remain very much in place today. We live in a deeply hierarchical society uh which in terms of its class structure is very similar to feudalism actually. And so I think we have to understand that capitalism has many uh elements uh that resemble feudalism precisely because it was intended to bring back those elements after they were uh eroded.
And so part of um what you promote is the idea of degrowth. this idea that you know we’re not going to be able to solve this through the mythology that most of us are sold that we can continue to have perpetual growth we just need to have better growth right so um we’re not going to be saved through growth so run us through uh degrowth and how do you sell that to people today who might be watching this who are thinking well I can barely make my bills I can you know barely make rent I work three jobs you know it’s like what how much less am I supposed to do here?
Look, so there’s I mean when people hear the word degrowth, they there’s immediate confusion. Uh I I’ll tell you the two most common misunderstandings. Uh the first is that this means we’re going to prevent the global south from growing. This is actually completely wrong. Uh degrowth is targeted at the imperial core specifically which is which is the region of the world that that over consumes the planet’s resources, right? Uh and that is driving ecological breakdown and and and climate and climate change overwhelmingly, right? So um in the rich countries I mean there’s uh there’s there’s total national consumption of material resources that’s something like four times over the sustainable boundary. I mean just massive levels of excess. Um and in global south countries it’s quite the opposite. They actually underconume. Global south countries need to develop their infrastructures and uh develop their industrial capacity to meet human needs and that is going to require and entail growth. In the rich countries it’s a different story entirely. Right.
We have massive productive capacity, massive levels of aggregate consumption. Uh and yet still, as you pointed out, there’s still misery in these societies. There’s still misery in the societ despite massive levels of production and consumption. You still find people I mean huge numbers of people unable to afford housing. Uh in in the UK, there’s 4.5 4.2 million children living in poverty. Right? In the US, half the population cannot afford the health care they need. Um and and why is that? Uh like what explains this paradox? It’s because capital controls what gets produced. And so we’re not producing what people actually need. We’re producing what is profitable to capital. And that’s why you have this paradox of massive levels of production and wealth despite massive human deprivation alongside it.
Um and so what is degrowth in this context? It’s a matter of uh scaling down damaging and unnecessary forms of production. Not all forms of production. We have to increase some forms of production. We have to increase renewable energy. We have to increase public housing. We have to increase public services and public transit, things like that. Um, nutritious food provisioning for people and so on. Um, but uh, do we want to increase SUV production? Do we want to increase fast fashion production? Do we want to increase production of mansions and private jets and, you know, cruise ships? You know, no. Why would we do that in the middle of an ecological
Chapter 11: Should We Tax the Rich at 100%?
emergency when these things overwhelmingly benefit just a small faction of our society? um it makes much more sense to reduce production in those areas, liberate resources, liberate labor to be redirected towards producing things that we actually need. And so, as you can see, this is definitely not going to happen under capitalism.
Um, by the way, I should also say that these this proposition of reducing damaging production and reorganizing production around human needs is very popular. We did a study that was published recently in the Lancet planetary health and found in the US and UK strong majority support for the kinds of policy proposals that are in degrowth research. And that’s really interesting to see. And so the question is like if people actually want such a future where um we have a more efficient economy that meets human needs more efficiently and doesn’t overuse the planet’s resources and lives in harmony with the rest of the living world and without exploiting the global south, right? Uh why don’t we have that? Why don’t we have that? It’s because we don’t live in economic democracies. We don’t even live in political democracies. And so, um, this is not going to happen under capitalism. Uh, because it’s not profitable for capital obviously to scale down, you know, profitable forms of production. And so, it’s going to require some kind of again a transformation that brings production more under democratic control so that we can say we don’t want to produce those damaging things. We want to produce these necessary things instead. And let that be a conversation that we have as a society and see what comes out of it. uh and and we already know in some ways what does come out because there’s this amazing research on citizens assemblies that have been trialled in the UK, France and Spain and elsewhere around Europe where people do get a chance to decide to to democratically deliberate about these kinds of outcomes and they and they overwhelmingly move in that direction towards a more human- centered more planet- centered economy rather than one that’s you know focused on profit maximization.
So I think that democracy moves in that direction you know moves towards a more humane and ecological economy and and what’s the role of taxation within that degrowth plan?
Um I saw your article in which you say all income below a certain minimum threshold the level needed to acquire goods and services necessary to live a good life should be taxed at 0%. I think that would be very popular among many people. Um and all incomes above a certain maximum threshold a level beyond which additional consumption is clean unnecessarily destructive should be taxed at 100%. I half French and we had 100% tax actually in France above a certain level. So how do you define the threshold? How does this get you know decided?
I mean again I think that should be open for democratic deliberation. Um the point I try to make in this article and people can have a look at it. It’s published in the new internationalist. um and uh it’s about it’s about taxation is simply that we have we have a misconception about how taxation works. We think that we tax in order to fund public services as if corporations and rich people create money that then we as the public need to use in order to fund the things we need. But this is not how it works at all. Uh corporations don’t produce money, right? The state literally produces money. uh and so and so countries that have monetary sovereignty have the ability to to issue the national currency and invest in things they want and this is in fact how how how financing the state works.
So what is the real role of taxation? Um is simply to reduce excess demand because again I mean if a state is going to be issuing currency to fund public spending or public services, public works then if that’s competing with other forms of production in the economy then it’s going to drive prices up and you’re going to have inflation and so you can’t have that situation. So the purpose of taxation is to reduce excess demand elsewhere in the economy. And once we realize that fact, then then we have a clarifying realization which is that if the working classes don’t overconume, right, and in most cases they do not, then why tax them at all, right? Like like like why reduce their demand? Uh and uh and and for the rich, if the purpose is to reduce excess demands, excess consumption in the economy, then why not just have 100% tax above a certain threshold? This is called a maximum income. And um and there’s lots of there’s lots of this that’s been written about this. There’s a great book called the case for maximum income. Uh and this is something that I think can be democratically determined.
Uh and and I think one one crucial thing to understand here also is the ecological element. Um when people think of money, they often think of like abstract tokens that you can just accumulate adnauseium and this is going to have no negative consequences. Besides the fact of course that it corrupts our political systems. But the reality is that is that money represents purchasing power over real resources and labor. That’s what money is, right? Uh and so the more you accumulate, the more power you have over our planet, over our planet’s resources, and over our collective labor. And and and do we believe that people should be allowed to accumulate power over our labor and resources indefinitely, infinitely, with no limits? Like would we ever accept that people can use uh our collective resources in the middle of an ecological emergency without limit for their own enrichments? It’s crazy. And so if we if we care about ecology in any kind of way, then a reduction in the purchasing power of the rich is going to be necessary. And uh we should have a conversation about that.
And of course that’s um the interesting argument that was had in a recent documentary with Gary Economics when he went to meet a number of um ultra wealthy people here in the capital London. And of course the argument that they made to him and which we hear all the time is that if you tax the rich excessively quote unquote excessively then they will flee. They will leave. They will take their capital elsewhere that that will lead to a dip in the economy and we will all be harmed by the economic impact of the departure of all of these ultra wealthy. What what do you say to that?
I mean the first thing is that I think everyone should go and read Gabriel Zuckman’s new little book which is a cleareyed accounts of how such attacks can be implemented and any negative consequences can be controlled right uh so it’s not like there’s not answers to these questions I think that’s important um you know people often say if you if you tax the rich they’re going to leave look I think we have to have a conversation about what exactly do we mean by that um I mean if the actual individuals leave does that really matter I mean they can’t take productive capacities like land or factories with them.
Chapter 12: How Do We Take Back Power From Capitalism?
And so, you know, then the society has access to those things. That can be a good thing. If they’re selling your currency, this can be a problem, you know, because that can put downward pressure on your currency. So, you don’t want that. Uh so, if they’re selling the currency and then trying to leave with their money, that can be a problem. But, that can be dealt with through exit taxes like Norway used. Or, you know, other capital controls can deal with this. or you know working more broadly with the EU to impose minimum taxes across the across the board or even globally that can avoid this kind of like billionaires racing to the closest tax haven kind of situation. Um but uh but yeah so so anyways I I I recommend people read the case for maximum income and then also Gabriel Zuckman’s book on on taxing billionaires.
One of the um questions I wanted to ask you was about how to bring about the political change necessary to shift the way the economy operates towards this more people centered uh economic model. um at a time where we’re facing so much authoritarian repression. Um if we just look at the response of the state to the climate action movement, you know, in 2020, extinction rebellion was listed as an ideological extremism threat alongside neo-Nazi groups and counterterrorism powers like schedule 7 and now routinely used to stop and detain environmental activists and even journalists at borders. A global witness found UK police were three times more likely to criminally charge peaceful climate protesters than far-right agitators. Um when the institutional apparatus treats climate advocacy um which is connected to um economic inequality issues because of the in unequal impact obviously that the climate change is h having on people. How how do you even begin to challenge the system? Um I if you can’t even protest against climate change, how do you then envisionage being able to take on the increasing merger of these political and economic elites?
The situation in the UK is bleak right now. I think also in the US, you know, um largely in the wake of the of the anti-genocide, you know, activism. And so what kind of world do we live in, Miriam?
Think about it. It’s just crazy the fact that um you know two of the most egregious problems of our generation you know watching a live stream genocide happening before our eyes with the support of our politicians on the one hand and then watching our political class completely abandon and fumble on climate change which produces incredible anxiety for so many people and and we’re watching destruction play out before us and people want to resist against this and they’re faced with this kind repression. This is madness. This is madness. We have to wake up to that fact.
In terms of solutions, I mean, look, it’s this is very very difficult. But, uh, but I would say that um, I think that what we need is we need political power. We need to build power. Uh, and I think that the simply protesting I mean, and of course we have to because we can’t stand by and watch these things happen without some kind of resistance. But simply protesting, I think we have to understand is not enough. We have to actually build political machines. Uh and to me that means building a mass party with deep roots in working-class communities that can connect people across different struggles united towards shared objectives. Um understanding that the objectives of the labor movement are the same as the objectives of the feminist movement and the anti-imperialist movement and the climate movement etc.
We have to unite around understanding that the the common problem that we face has to do with the nature of our capitalist economy. Um and that that those have to be overcome. Right? Uh and I think that building political movements that can achieve power has to be an objective here. Now in the UK what does that mean? Um I think in in each country we have to face a different political landscape. In the UK I think the question becomes can the Labor Party provide such a vehicle? And I think that the answer right now is very clearly no. is very clearly no and so some alternative vehicle has to be built and the sooner that we do that the better. Uh we cannot waste time in achieving that objective. It has to be done. Um and uh and again I think in each country they have to assess the political landscape and decide you know can an existing political party be used for this or does it require a different kind of mobilization but that’s what we face right now. That is the that’s the horizon.
Uh and and of course many people have defected from Labor to the Green Party under Zach Palansk’s leadership, but Zach Palansky appears to be living through Corbyn 2.0. If you’re watching closely, similar kinds of attacks in the legacy media space. Um I think a sort of attempt to pate aspects of the ruling class through certain um human sacrifices. I don’t mean real ones. I mean in the form of you know letting certain people go from the party as a sort of sign that you’ll concede things.
Are are there political parties that are already existing that can become the vehicles for this change as far as you’re concerned?
I think Palanski is really interesting. Um I’m very impressed by what he’s managed to do. It’s it’s it’s so interesting how a finger comes out and just says plainly what everybody thinks and immediately is loved by the masses, right? people immediately like yes finally someone is saying the obvious and you’re attracted to that it’s refreshing you know uh and so I think that he shows how powerful a kind of left populism can be a green left populism let’s say um that that that frames the problem not as like oh climate change or genocide these are like technical problems that have to be dealt with on some you know technical level but rather these are this is a class struggle right uh this is a class struggle that It’s uh it’s you know climate change is being driven by our economic system is being driven by the interest of elites and we have to resist that.
I think that this kind of populist messaging can be very powerful. What I worry about um is that like Corbin 2.0 to the extent they become associated with a single individual and there’s no like real mass party that’s behind it. Uh I worry that they’re very vulnerable to attack and so the media smear campaign ramps up. uh the the you know the accusations, the lies pour out. Nobody can resist this. Nobody can resist this and eventually will have its effects on toppling these these figures. Um and we saw how that happened, right?
Right. And so I think that the solution here is again real mass parties that are not associated so closely with individuals where we have like a robust broad leadership but also robust support from the working classes. Uh and so that when the attacks come people can brush them off because we know their lies and we support this this campaign and these objectives. Um but building that takes organization, right? That takes real work to build the kind of wall-to-wall solidarities in communities that are required for that kind of strength. But that’s the kind of political strength that you need in the face of the of the kind of opposition that we that we have. And so I think that’s that has to be on the agenda.
And presumably part of where that political strength would have historically come from was trade unions.
But we’re living in the AI era where we’re told that up to 70% of the workforce could eventually be replaced uh by technology. Um what’s your take on the AI era? You know, is the AI part of the solution? Does it just hand capital an even bigger lever? You know, what should the response be to this particular historical juncture?
To me, AI is a is is a symptom really. I mean the problems we see with AI are a symptom of the problems of capitalism. Uh we’re obviously very worried about AI. Uh it’s it’s clear that’s the people who are developing it do not have our interests at heart and it’s very concerning because a lot I mean a lot of people are looking at their their jobs being automated etc. And then what what happens to them? They’re they’re cut off, right? Um, and so I think that’s AI is scary in a situation where we have no democratic control over it and where the people who do don’t care about us.
Um, in a situation in a more democratic socialist environment, where we would have some kind of democratic say over how this technology is being deployed, we would have a lot less reason to be concerned. And furthermore also even if AI was able to deliver labor time reductions you know in a democratic socialist context this would not be a concern for us because we could simply shorten the working week and everyone could take you know a share of necessary jobs and have more leisure time right this would be an amazing benefit of AI which we could have uh or we just remobilize our labor towards the things we actually need to do so now we don’t have to do like you know mindless copy editing let’s say or something like So we have more time. What can we do? We can build uh you know we can do ecological restoration. We can do care work. We can uh we can build our public transit system. You know whatever it might be things that we actually need. Uh and and in an economy that’s more democratically controlled, that’s what we could achieve.
And so this is an illustration of how the fear and anxiety we have about AI is simply because we live in a context where this is scary. But it doesn’t have to be, right? We shouldn’t have to live in a in a situation where the technologies that we produce seem to be our enemies when they could be harnessed for you know for progress. Uh and that’s really I think the lesson we should take here is that the problem is not the technology but the system under which this technology is being deployed.
Final question to you. Uh we’ve heard this line many times from those in power today that we’re living through the best time in history to be alive. The World Bank shows extreme poverty collapsing since 1919. And Bill Gates has popularized a chart showing poverty falling from 94% in 1820 to under 10% today. You of course went headto-head with Gates over this exact chart. Um so what’s wrong with the good news story? Isn’t it true that we’re all better off today than we ever were before?
Look, I think that it’s important to understand this in historical perspective. uh and this is some research that our team has done recently showing that with the rise of capitalism from the long 16th century there was actually a decline in in human welfare across several key in u know indicators during that period and and so the question is when did prog because clearly we live in a better world today right when did that progress start it started in the core economies around the late 19th century coinciding exactly with the rise of the labor movements and the socialist movements in Europe which you established affordable housing and public services and sanitation systems that dramatically improved the the living conditions of the working class and dramatically increased life expecties.
Um, what about the periphery? When did social progress begin in the periphery? looking at the historical record, it’s in the in the early 20th century with the rise of the anti-colonial movements that are kicking out the colonizers and regaining control over their land and resources and organizing production around around national developments and uh you know housing and public services etc with incredible benefits for people. Right? We really see extraordinary progress during that that period.
Then you have a neoliberal backlash against that pushing the global south back into into the periphery into subordination in subordinate positions in global supply chains. And we see um actually an emiseration as as industrial policy is unwound as public services are slashed as labor rights are destroyed under structural adjustment etc. Um people’s lives get harder. uh there’s been some improvements since the commodities boom more recently as uh as people’s incomes have have risen on the back of demand from China. Uh so it’s there’s a a system of flux that happens and I think that the key thing to understand is that progress to the extent that we have it is never handed down by capital but it’s fought for by struggles from below. Right?
There’s this amazing quote from Thomas Sankara the revolutionary leader of Bkina Faso who used to say um we are the heirs of the world’s revolutions we are the heirs of the world’s revolutions every decent shred of dignity we have right has come through struggle the fact that we have any kind of democracy at all the fact that we have public services that we have a weekend that we have I mean to the extent that we even have women’s rights right that that workers get to vote and political systems. I mean, these things didn’t exist before. They had to be fought for against the interests of the capitalist class. Um had to reclaim control over production and mo and mobilize it more in favor of human needs. And so that’s where progress comes from.
And and my view is like look I mean to look at the world today and say this is the best it could possibly be. You have to be insane. You have to you have to be insane to see a world where billions of people are deprived of access to basic goods and services where you know more than two billion people live in food insecurity. Um right where billions don’t even have like a clean cooking stove or basic sanitation in their homes or access to clean water. Things that that are so easy to produce, right? Um and and yet we have a production machine that is driving us over planetary boundaries and destroying the biosphere. like you have to be crazy to look at the world and say this is the best it could possibly be.
I fundamentally reject that. I believe that we live again in a shadow of the world we could have. If we had more democratic control over our prodigious productive capacities, we could very quickly resolve these problems and live in a much better world. There’s no reason that across the global south uh you know not every person could be living with a life expectancy of 83 84 years like they do in Spain or Switzerland right now. There’s just no reason for that. It’s needless suffering that that we see there. Um there’s no reason the people in London have to be begging on the streets or living in tents underneath bridges. Crazy. I can’t accept a world like this and I think no one should.
Um and so my view is that is that a much better world is possible and we can achieve that. Uh we have the technological ability to do so. Uh and and what it requires ultimately is a is a political struggle and that’s what we need to focus our attention on.
Jason Hegel, thank you so much for talking to us today.
Thank you Miriam. And thank you so much for watching. Don’t forget to subscribe here on YouTube, leave us a comment below, and join us over at the tnetwork.co for adfree episodes and exclusive Substack articles. To support our independent work, check out our Patreon link in the bio, and follow us over at Tik Tok and Instagram for all the highlights. In the meantime, stay curious, stay questioning, and we’ll be back soon with more tea.
Footnotes:
Technofeudalism
is a modern economic system where big technology companies have power similar to feudal lords in the past. Instead of land, these companies control digital platforms, data, and online markets. People and smaller businesses rely on these platforms, just like peasants once relied on feudal lords for land and protection.
Origins of the idea
As a subject technofeudalism sits at the intersection of two subject areas, Information technology and Economics, and the concept has cropped up independently within both disciplines.
In Information Technology area Bruce Schneier wrote an article in November 2012 entitled “When It Comes to Security, We’re Back to Feudalism”[1], which was published in Wired Magazine, another in December 2012 entitled “Feudal Security”[2], and another “You Have No Control Over Security on the Feudal Internet”[3] for Harvard Business Review in June 2013. Since then the term has entered the vocabulary of sites such as Slashdot.
Within Economics the concept of technofeudalism was described in an article[4] by Marina Gorbis of the Institute for the Future in 2010 and has been developed by several thinkers who argue that digital capitalism is shifting toward a new kind of economic control. While the term “technofeudalism” was later popularised by Durand (2020) and Varoufakis (2023), its conceptual roots can be traced to Kostakis and Bauwens, whose Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy (2014) described “netarchical capitalism” as a “new-feudal form of cognitive capitalism”[5] in which centralised platforms enable user cooperation but appropriate all monetised exchange value, leaving the actual creators of value unrewarded. One of the most well-known voices on this topic is Yanis Varoufakis, an economist and former Greek finance minister. He argues that companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple do not simply compete in markets—they own and control them, just like feudal lords controlled land in the Middle Ages.
French philosopher Cédric Durand also explores this idea in his book Technoféodalisme: Critique de l’économie numérique (2020), where he describes how digital platforms extract wealth from users, workers, and businesses without true competition. He claims that today’s economy is no longer based on traditional capitalism, where businesses compete, but on a system where a few tech giants rule over digital space.
These thinkers believe that rather than creating a free and open Internet, digital platforms have built a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, making it harder for smaller players to succeed.
Source: Wikipedia
Digital Currencies:
Both Governments and Corporations could issue digital currencies which are programmable. The government could issue a stimulus check that can only be spent at approoved stores or on approved merchandize. It could also expire after 60 days if the government so desires. Private crypto like Etherium could implement similar rules, violating the norms we exprect today.
Digital Identity:
With digital identity, governments can punish and reward you specifically. Suppose you behaved in an approved way, you might get permission to fly on two more airline flights without having to pay a surcharge. In a more draconian scenario, if you posted online in a disfavored way, your credit card would stop working whenever their is a protest called for Washington D.C. or your local area.
Digital Taxes
Digital Currency would make tax collection automatic. Taxes would be assesssed and then immediately deducted from you digital account.
Different Appeals: Digital Quotas / Immigration:
The promotion for digital currency may make different appeals:
In appealing to Liberals, it may promote the ability to account for and enforce carbon credits used to reduce climate change.
In appealing to Conservatives, it may promote the ability for digital id to enforce immigration and voting restrictions.