Paul Mason: First an intro­duc­tion from me about the ideas that drove me to write a book called Postcapitalism, and about the very rapid­ly chang­ing con­text for those ideas. So, we’ve had Brexit. And then with no par­tic­u­lar expla­na­tion from the gov­ern­ment, Hard Brexit. Then Trump. Coming next, far-right pres­i­dent of Austria. And then Marine Le Pen comes a fright­en­ing­ly close sec­ond in the French pres­i­den­tial elections.

There’s some very inter­est­ing and worth­while root cause analy­sis going on right now in the media which I’d urge you to read about why this is all hap­pen­ing. The rise of pop­ulism. Is it about eco­nom­ic fail­ure, or is it about the chal­lenged iden­ti­ty of white men? And these are very good ques­tions. But I stand by the asser­tion I made last year when the book came out that the root cause of both those phenomena—the eco­nom­ic fail­ure and frus­tra­tions of low wage peo­ple, and the fail­ing sto­ry of Western democracy—is ulti­mate­ly down to this:

That neolib­er­al­ism is bro­ken. The eco­nom­ic mod­el of the last thir­ty years. It worked for a bit, dragged the bot­tom two thirds of the world’s pop­u­la­tion up the income scale dra­mat­i­cal­ly, facil­i­tat­ed the tech rev­o­lu­tion. But it’s stopped work­ing. And in the ten min­utes I’ve got I want to just give the 101 expla­na­tion of why. A longer ver­sion is avail­able in my book and on many many oth­er, longer intro­duc­tions you can find on you YouTube and var­i­ous oth­er platforms.

So first issue, wages are stag­nat­ing. I hope you can see the gray line. This is US wages but it’s the same sto­ry rough­ly every­where. Productivity car­ries on until very recent­ly ris­ing, but wages are stag­nat­ing rel­a­tive to it. And that’s dif­fer­ent from what things looked like when (those of you who can remem­ber it) when the kind of Keynesian era was in full swing up to the 70s. So what you end up with as a result of that when wages stag­nate, you end up with this:

We’ve used debt to dri­ve con­sump­tion. So the com­bined gov­ern­ment, pri­vate, and cor­po­rate debt of the world as shown on this graph has mush­roomed to 300% of GDP. And if you look at this line here, this is the per­cent­age line. You read the right-hand axis, 300% of GDP. In 1990 it was 140% of GDP. Now if you’re into tril­lions, you read the left-hand scale. So you see, world debt and world GDP in tril­lions, we’re about the same until 1990. There’s world GDP, sixty-something tril­lions. And there is world debt, 180 trillion.

So…that’s not good. It can’t go on. And what hap­pens of course is because we keep get­ting boom and bust cycles and entire pen­sion sys­tems go into melt­down, banks have to be saved, wel­fare states have to, we are told, be wiped out or sig­nif­i­cant­ly dis­man­tled, what you then get is one more effect. And that is this:

Central banks, to keep the sys­tem afloat once it’s start­ed to go wrong, print mon­ey. Or they cut inter­est rates, loosen cred­it con­di­tions. In gen­er­al, the answer to fail­ure of growth and cri­sis is to sup­ply more mon­ey to the sys­tem. And those of you who under­stand the fair­ly rudi­men­ta­ry laws of sup­ply and demand can prob­a­bly under­stand this graph. If you increase the sup­ply of mon­ey rel­a­tive to the amount of eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty that mon­ey is there to rep­re­sent, what is going to hap­pen is that there’s an over­sup­ply of mon­ey. And what hap­pens to things that are over­sup­plied, their price falls. And there­fore what this is is the falling price of the safest bor­row­ing on Earth. And it’s fall­en rough­ly towards zero. This is gov­ern­ment debt.

And one of my friends in the bond mar­ket, you know, a very good main­stream kind of guy, said, I went to col­lege, did an intern­ship you know twen­ty years ago, became a bond trad­er, because I want­ed peo­ple’s mon­ey to grow. Now I over­see the shrink­age of the world’s mon­ey, and I don’t like it.” In fact he said to me it does­n’t feel like capitalism.

Now, my expla­na­tion for why all this is hap­pen­ing is that cap­i­tal­ism is fail­ing to adapt in the way it did in its most suc­cess­ful peri­ods. In the 1900 to 1914 peri­od. In the post-war peri­od. Because it isn’t cre­at­ing what we call a high val­ue, high wage, high skill syn­the­sis. It’s not obvi­ous how you make a lot of mon­ey if you’re an ordi­nary per­son, through get­ting a job, get­ting high skills, par­tic­i­pat­ing in the most advanced sec­tor of the economy.

Why? Because infor­ma­tion tech­nol­o­gy I argue is dif­fer­ent. It’s a very dif­fer­ent kind of tech­nol­o­gy than all oth­er tech­nolo­gies, albeit that it is only machines. Software is a machine. Computers are machines. Silicon chips are machines with three bil­lion switch­es on them. Together in this room we have more switch­es than human­i­ty ever cre­at­ed in the whole his­to­ry of switches. 

So they’re just machines, but the scale of their effi­cien­cy has changed the game. And I argue that we’re cre­at­ing new dynam­ics in terms of price, work and orga­ni­za­tion. At the heart of the prob­lem is the infor­ma­tion effect on prices. Whether you use stan­dard eco­nom­ics or Marxist eco­nom­ics, if some­thing costs almost noth­ing to repro­duce or pro­duce, then under con­di­tions of free com­pe­ti­tion, its price is going to fall close to what its pro­duc­tion cost is. And if that’s zero, its price is going to fall pret­ty close to zero. Now, cap­i­tal­ism nev­er under­stood this. Mainstream eco­nom­ics does­n’t— Everything from main­stream eco­nom­ics is scarce. And if you sud­den­ly get a boost of non-scarcity, or what we call abun­dance, then things like this start happening:

This is just one exam­ple I could use. So, nev­er mind the dot­ted line. The white line is Moore’s Law. The white line is the spec­tac­u­lar tech­no­log­i­cal progress you have lived through. That’s the rate of com­put­er tech­nol­o­gy. And until 2007, the cost of sequenc­ing DNA rough­ly tracked it. And then, the infor­ma­tion effect kicks in. And so the cost of sequenc­ing an entire genome of DNA falls from $100 mil­lion to $0.001 mil­lion, or $1,000.

That’s the price effect on infor­ma­tion. If you thought your kids were going to have high-paid, high-value jobs in mass kind of fac­to­ries sequenc­ing DNA, they’re not. And we could start here and go the same scale again, and we’ll fol­low the same thing toward zero.

So there is a sur­vival mech­a­nism cap­i­tal­ism has against this zero mar­gin­al cost effect, which is to cre­ate mas­sive monop­o­lies which then cap­ture the val­ue and the net­work effects of shared infor­ma­tion. And as we’ll hear about, one of the key tac­tics in the last five years of those monop­o­lies has been to smash and grab their way into mar­kets that should real­ly be see­ing mas­sive price falls to the ben­e­fit of the con­sumer. I doubt whether this, the so-called uni­corns, the plat­forms, the multi-billion dol­lar com­pa­nies based on sim­ple algo­rithms, can sur­vive what’s going to happen. 

Now, the sec­ond dynam­ic is about work. Forty-seven per­cent of all jobs are now sus­cep­ti­ble to automa­tion in the next twen­ty years. And that’s real­ly before full arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence kicks in. And yet we don’t erad­i­cate low-paid, repet­i­tive jobs. We go on cre­at­ing them, because the sys­tem we’ve got—low-wage system—incentivizes their cre­ation. We cre­ate what the anthro­pol­o­gist David Graeber has called mil­lions of bull­shit jobs.” Jobs that don’t need to exist. The word car­wash,” instead of a machine—that’s what a car­wash was thir­ty years ago—is now five guys with rags. Because five guys with rags can under­cut the machine.

So pro­duc­tiv­i­ty is not ris­ing. It’s stag­nat­ing in many coun­tries. Because you can make the most vast pro­duc­tiv­i­ty gains like the one I just described there in DNA sequenc­ing, but then you just employ peo­ple— Walk around the streets of Brighton and see what peo­ple are employed doing. Graduates serv­ing coffee.

So final­ly, infor­ma­tion low­ers the bar­ri­ers to all kinds of orga­ni­za­tion­al inno­va­tion and allows the cre­ation of hor­i­zon­tal, rel­a­tive­ly non-managed busi­ness mod­els and the rise of open source. And today, one of the big themes of the peo­ple we’ve drawn togeth­er is not peo­ple who are doing this for ide­o­log­i­cal rea­sons. I mean, my book is an ide­o­log­i­cal inter­ven­tion into this which ends with a call for reg­u­lat­ing the econ­o­my to facil­i­tate these kind of busi­ness­es. But first of all we have to under­stand what those busi­ness­es are. 

That’s the basic the­sis of Postcapitalism, that it’s pos­si­ble. And I go around the world telling peo­ple who will lis­ten. Which some­times includes the Shadow Chancellor, the may­or of Barcelona, the Chancellor of Austria, that promis­ing peo­ple high val­ue jobs in the future if only we vote for X, Y, or Z par­ty is not enough to solve the prob­lem that we’re all now faced with. We have to redesign the sys­tem and begin reg­u­lat­ing in favor of inno­va­tion and busi­ness cre­ation along the lines of some of the ones that we’re going to hear from today.

I’m remind­ed that this space was the Prince Regent’s sta­ble. It was where he was being taught to ride. If you’re won­der­ing how he rode in a small space like this, it’s dou­ble the length, as you’ll see at lunchtime. It’s a big long hall. And while George IV, the future George IV was trot­ting around this very space, some­body prob­a­bly men­tioned to him fac­to­ries. There’s these things called fac­to­ries. And they were main­ly nes­tled in small places by rivers at the time, before steam comes in. And some­body says, You know what, we like these. It’s going to cause a lot of dis­rup­tion but we’re gonna real­ly pro­mote these.” And George IV prob­a­bly said, Yeah fine. Carry on. Pass the port, darling.”

I think we have to be a lit­tle bit less insou­ciant than that. We have to say look, there’s this new thing, the col­lab­o­ra­tive econ­o­my. And we have to reg­u­late in its favor as strong­ly as ear­ly 19th cen­tu­ry gov­ern­ments reg­u­lat­ed in favor of cap­i­tal­ism itself. I call it post­cap­i­tal­ism. I envis­age a rel­a­tive­ly long tran­si­tion towards abun­dance in var­i­ous sec­tors. The end­point is free machines, lit­tle com­pul­so­ry work, a renew­able ener­gy sys­tem, and high cir­cu­lar­i­ty in the use of nat­ur­al resources.

The good news is that it’s pos­si­ble and some peo­ple are begin­ning to work out how to do it at scale. The bad news is a lot of peo­ple wed­ded to old busi­ness mod­els don’t get it. Many of you will work with them. And because we have a polit­i­cal and social elite who think this present sys­tem, the free mar­ket sys­tem based on high finance, high com­plex­i­ty, and low wages was the most per­fect pos­si­ble sys­tem ever to be imag­ined, we haven’t yet seen a big break in elite think­ing. And I think this has to come now, because as we’re all con­fronting, many peo­ple are just no longer will­ing to go on with the sys­tem as it is and they’re choos­ing reac­tionary outcomes. 

And so we have to basi­cal­ly face the fact that if we don’t grasp the oppor­tu­ni­ty at gov­ern­men­tal lev­el and intergov­ern­men­tal lev­el, and think about a new mod­el of the econ­o­my and soci­ety, what peo­ple are going to do is start vot­ing against— I said this a year ago when the book came out. Wrote it two years ago when I fin­ished the first draft. If you don’t go beyond the present mod­el, peo­ple will start to vote to break up glob­al­iza­tion. And I want to defend glob­al­iza­tion but change the model.

What we’re liv­ing through is a 500-year event. That could be very very dif­fi­cult to get your head around. Fifty years is a big num­ber for econ­o­mists. Five years is what they’re com­fort­able with. 

But this guy had men­tal tools to under­stand it. Francis Bacon, the founder of the sci­en­tif­ic method. This is what he wrote in 1620. That gun­pow­der, print­ing and the com­pass have changed the whole face and state of things through­out the world.” It’s a crude form of tech­no­log­i­cal deter­min­ism. But he was right. 

To fin­ish, what hap­pens to busi­ness in this tran­si­tion? Well, I think that you have to start think­ing about the econ­o­my as a com­bi­na­tion of the mar­ket and the state (which is what eco­nom­ics is all about now), and the nonmar­ket. The non­mar­ket for eco­nom­ics is every­thing you do in your shed. It only mat­ters to them if you hap­pen to buy a Hornby train set, or an Airfix mod­el to make in your shed. This is leisure time. This is noneconomic.

But for post­cap­i­tal­ism and the post­cap­i­tal­ist the­o­ry, the non­mar­ket is equal­ly impor­tant. And what we’re look­ing for is a tran­si­tion in which we can mea­sure the inputs and out­puts of human­i­ty in these three buck­ets, and the only thing we can use to mea­sure it, I argue, is work. Work is the only thing that Wikipedia or an open source pro­gram­mer has in com­mon with tax­a­tion and mar­ket activ­i­ty. Because there’s no mon­ey involved in many of the busi­ness and activ­i­ties that go on here in the nonmarket.

The tran­si­tion path I think involves the embrace of automa­tion. If we dis­so­ci­ate work and incomes, because we’re going to have to, we’re going to have to try and find ways of giv­ing peo­ple incomes and there­fore as a tran­si­tion mea­sure I argue for the cit­i­zen’s basic income. I also think the state is going to have to begin pro­vid­ing cheap basic goods. Because a precariously-employed work­force can’t live— In fact, giv­ing them a 5% pay rise is not so hap­py for them as giv­ing them free trans­port, or free col­lege edu­ca­tion. Open source; we have to pro­mote it and pre­fer it. And we have to, as we’ll hear lat­er, attack and find alter­na­tives to rent-seeking busi­ness­es that sim­ply squat on top of the tech­no­log­i­cal advances we’re liv­ing through and extract extra mon­ey for them and not exploit their potential.

So that is my time up for my kind of vision of the future. It’s a quick run-through. And I hope we’ll be able to— There’s no Q&A. Louise has designed it so there’s no Q&A. But hope­ful­ly in the dis­cus­sions and over lunch, which is very struc­tured as well, you’ll be able to have a Q&A between bites of your falafel or what­ev­er it is.

Further Reference

Meaning 2016 archived con­fer­ence web site and Paul Mason profile

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.