The first question is one we’ve considered from various angles over the years on this blog. The second is, of course, timely – although the important emphasis here is on the ‘complete’. As we’ll see, they’re very, very connected!
Trying to pursue a socialist argument in a world largely sold on capitalism is always a struggle. You have to deal with every issue and answer every question in line with the rules of Monopoly, but you don’t want to play Monopoly: it’s a stupid game – there are far better ones – but no-one understands you – or wants to understand you – unless you do.
- Q: So, Jeremy, how will your policies ensure that the UK GDP continues to grow after Brexit?
- A: I don’t particularly care if it does. It’s a physical law that nothing can increase exponentially for ever: something goes ‘bang’ in the end. We need to look beyond economics for the real answers.
But, of course, if Jeremy says that, he gets carted off to a rest home. So, instead, he has to pretend that he’s interested in GDP, and that taxing Starbucks will help it. Well, it might or it might not – that’s close to irrelevant – but, already, we’re having to have the debate on their terms.
We could be well-advised to take note of this word. We may be hearing a lot more of it …
Actually, in truth, we’ve already used it a few times before in this blog but perhaps now might be a good time to have a closer look at what it is and what it might mean?
It’s always dodgy making claims like this but the term technocapitalism was probably effectively coined by Professor Luis Suarez-Villa in Technocapitalism: A Critical Perspective on Technological Innovation and Corporatism (2009) and developed further in Globalization and Technocapitalism: The Political Economy of Corporate Power and Technological Domination (2012). [Yes, it may have been used before this, but it gets very hard to track these things down accurately.]
Professor Stephen Hawking provoked considerable debate recently by suggesting that we could have more to fear from the nature of capitalism in future than armies of intelligent robots. The response was immediate, robust, deeply personal and entirely predictable.
The basic premise of the discussion was Hawking noting that, if most of the work of a future society was performed by machines, then how we occupied ourselves instead was much more of a social, political, economic, ethical, demographic, etc. question than it was technological. The rebuttal was essentially:
- That’s silly: the old jobs will be replaced by new ones,
- Please don’t say nasty things about capitalism,
- Scientists should stick to science.
So how much of this criticism was justified and how much of it was simply The Establishment closing ranks?