2
" As we have seen, neoliberalism propagated its ideology through a division of labour – academics shaping education, think tanks influencing policy, and popularisers manipulating the media. The inculcation of neoliberalism involved a full-spectrum project of constructing a hegemonic worldview. A new common sense was built that came to co-opt and eventually dominate the terminology of ‘modernity’ and ‘freedom’ – terminology that fifty years ago would have had very different connotations. Today, it is nearly impossible to speak these words without immediately invoking the precepts of neoliberal capitalism. We all know today that ‘modernisation’ translates into job cuts, the slashing of welfare and the privatisation of government services. To modernise, today, simply means to neoliberalise. The term ‘freedom’ has suffered a similar fate, reduced to individual freedom, freedom from the state, and the freedom to choose between consumer goods. "
― , Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
8
" Parecería que la competencia capitalista ha sido un importante eje impulsor de este avance tecnológico. Una narrativa popular ve la competencia intercapitalista como impulsora de los cambios tecnológicos en el proceso de producción, mientras que el capitalismo del consumidor demanda un conjunto de productos cada vez más diferenciados. Al mismo tiempo, empero, el capitalismo ha puesto obstáculos sustanciales en el camino del desarrollo tecnológico. Aunque la bien cuidada imagen del capitalismo comprende la toma de riesgos dinámica y la innovación tecnológica, esta imagen en realidad oculta las verdaderas fuentes del dinamismo en la economía. Avances como los ferrocarriles, internet, las computadoras, los vuelos supersónicos, los viajes espaciales, los satélites, los medicamentos, el software de reconocimiento de voz, la nanotecnología, las pantallas interactivas y la energía limpia han sido alimentados y guiados por Estados, no por empresas. "
― , Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
12
" Our view is that, contrary to its popular presentation, neoliberalism differs from classical liberalism in ascribing a significant role to the state.7 A major task of neoliberalism has therefore been to take control of the state and repurpose it.8 Whereas classical liberalism advocated respect for a naturalised sphere supposedly beyond state control (the natural laws of man and the market), neoliberals understand that markets are not ‘natural’.9 Markets do not spontaneously emerge as the state backs away, but must instead be consciously constructed, sometimes from the ground up.10 For instance, there is no natural market for the commons (water, fresh air, land), or for healthcare, or for education.11 These and other markets must be built through an elaborate array of material, technical and legal constructs. Carbon markets required years to be built;12 volatility markets exist in large part as a function of abstract financial models;13 and even the most basic markets require intricate design.14 Under neoliberalism, the state therefore takes on a significant role in creating ‘natural’ markets. "
― , Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
13
" what set the left apart from the right was its unambiguous embrace of the future. The future was to be an improvement over the present in material, social and political terms. By contrast, the forces of the political right were, with a few notable exceptions, defined by their defence of tradition and their essentially reactionary nature.17 This situation was reversed during the rise of neoliberalism, with politicians like Thatcher commanding the rhetoric of modernisation and the future to great effect. Co-opting these terms and mobilising them into a new hegemonic common sense, neoliberalism’s vision of modernity has held sway ever since. Consequently, discussions of the left in terms of the future now seem aberrant, even absurd. With the postmodern moment, the seemingly intrinsic links between the future, modernity and emancipation were prized apart. Philosophers like Simon Critchley can now confidently assert that ‘we have to resist the idea and ideology of the future, which is always the ultimate trump card of capitalist ideas of progress’.18 Such folk-political sentiments blindly accept the neoliberal common sense, preferring to shy away from grand visions and replace them with a posturing resistance. From the radical left’s discomfort with technological modernity to the social democratic left’s inability to envision an alternative world, everywhere today the future has largely been ceded to the right. A skill that the left once excelled at – building enticing visions for a better world – has deteriorated after years of neglect. If "
― , Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
15
" Concurrent with the decline of manufacturing, the latter half of the twentieth century oversaw another shift. While earlier office technologies had supplemented workers and increased demand for them, the development of the microprocessor and computing technologies began to replace semiskilled service workers in many areas – for example, telephone operators and secretaries.20 The roboticisation of services is now gathering steam, with over 150,000 professional service robots sold in the past fifteen years.21 Under particular threat have been ‘routine’ jobs – jobs that can be codified into a series of steps. These are tasks that computers are perfectly suited to accomplish once a programmer has created the appropriate software, leading to a drastic reduction in the numbers of routine manual and cognitive jobs over the past four decades.22 The result has been a polarisation of the labour market, since many middle-wage, mid-skilled jobs are routine, and therefore subject to automation.23 Across both North America and Western Europe, the labour market is now characterised by a predominance of workers in low-skilled, low-wage manual and service jobs (for example, fast-food, retail, transport, hospitality and warehouse workers), along with a smaller number of workers in high-skilled, high-wage, non-routine cognitive jobs.24 "
― , Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
17
" The participatory economics (Parecon) project, for instance, envisions direct democracy at every level of society; but this vision for a postcapitalist world translates into endlessly ramifying staff meetings over every detail of life – hardly the inspiring stuff of utopian visions.35 Under Occupy, many general assemblies devolved into similar situations in which even the most mundane of issues had to be painstakingly addressed by a collective.36 The acrimonious debates over drummers making too much noise in the Zuccotti Park occupation are just one particularly farcical example of this. The more general point is that direct democracy requires a significant amount of participation and effort – in other words, it entails increasing amounts of work. During brief moments of revolutionary enthusiasm, this extra work can become inconsequential; yet after the return to normality it is simply added to the ordinary pressures of everyday life.37 The extra work of direct democracy is problematic especially because of the constitutive exclusions it entails – particularly for those who are unable to attend physically, those who do not feel comfortable in large groups and those who lack public speaking skills (with all the gendered and racialised biases inherent to these factors).38 As the Occupy movement went on, the general assemblies simply collapsed, often under the weight of exhaustion and boredom. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the problem of democracy today is not that people want a say over every single aspect of their lives. The real issue of democratic deficit is that the most significant decisions of society are out of the hands of the average person.39 Direct democracy responds to this problem, but attempts to solve it by making democracy an immediate and bodily experience that rejects mediation. "
― , Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
20
" Un sentimiento de política folk se ha hecho presente tanto en el horizontalismo radical como en movimientos localistas más moderados, aunque algunas intuiciones parecidas apuntalan un vasto abanico de la izquierda contemporánea. En todos esos grupos se acepta ampliamente una serie de juicios: lo pequeño es bello, lo local es ético, lo simple es mejor, la permanencia es opresiva, el progreso se ha terminado. Se prefiere este tipo de ideas por encima de un proyecto contrahegemónico: una política capaz de competir con el poder capitalista en escalas más grandes. En su núcleo, gran parte de la política folk contemporánea expresa, por ende, un «profundo pesimismo: asume que no podemos llevar a cabo un cambio de gran escala, colectivo y social».91 Esta actitud derrotista de la izquierda corre fuera de control y, considerando los continuados fracasos de los últimos treinta años, quizá haya ocurrido por buenas razones. Para los partidos políticos de centro izquierda, la nostalgia de un pasado perdido es todo lo que se puede esperar. El contenido más radical que puede encontrarse entre ellos está hecho de sueños de una socialdemocracia y de la así llamada «edad de oro» del capitalismo.92 Sin embargo, las condiciones mismas que hicieron posible la socialdemocracia ya no existen. La «edad de oro» capitalista fue predicada sobre el paradigma productivo de un entorno fabril disciplinado, donde los trabajadores (blancos, varones) recibían seguridad y un estándar de vida básico a cambio de toda una vida de aburrimiento atrofiante y represión social. Dicho sistema dependía de una jerarquía internacional de imperios, colonias y una periferia subdesarrollada; una jerarquía nacional de racismo y sexismo y una jerarquía familiar rígida de subyugación femenina. Además, la socialdemocracia se apoyaba en un equilibrio particular de fuerzas entre las clases (y una disposición de éstas a transigir) y todo esto sólo fue posible tras la destrucción sin precedentes ocasionada por la Gran Depresión y por la Segunda Guerra Mundial y de cara a las amenazas externas del comunismo y el fascismo. Pese a toda esa nostalgia que muchos sienten, este régimen es indeseable y también imposible de recuperar. Empero, el punto más pertinente es que, incluso si pudiéramos dar marcha atrás hacia la socialdemocracia, no deberíamos hacerlo. Podemos hacer cosas mejores, y la fidelidad socialdemócrata a los empleos y el crecimiento significa que siempre actuará de manera afín al capitalismo y que lo hará a expensas de la gente. Más que modelar nuestro futuro sobre un pasado nostálgico, deberíamos apuntar a crear un futuro para nosotros mismos. El paso más allá de los obstáculos del presente no se logrará mediante el retorno a un capitalismo más humanizado, reconstruido desde una remembranza del pasado con ojos llorosos. Si bien la nostalgia de un pasado perdido claramente no es una respuesta adecuada, tampoco lo es la glorificación actual de la resistencia. La resistencia siempre significa resistencia contra otra fuerza activa. En otras palabras, más que un movimiento activo, es un gesto defensivo y reactivo: no resistimos para traer a la existencia un mundo nuevo, resistimos en nombre de un mundo viejo. El énfasis contemporáneo en la resistencia oculta, por ende, una postura defensiva contra la intrusión del capitalismo expansionista "
― , Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
