• If, following the concept of the Bit Revolution, it is now possible to track, measure and control in real time all important aspects of the processes by which things are transformed into the means of human survival, is it not possible that the ambiguous operation of converting all labor and capital into commodities through financial exchange value and the trust upon which it depends, and the arbitrary, injurious and invidious nature of this operation, has finally become, on the whole, a hinderance to human liberation rather than a step towards that liberation? Rather than a necessary step in development, say from feudalism to capitalism, it amounts to a stop on human freedom. Saying as much in 1918 would probably have amounted to so much infantile leftism; saying as much in 2018 amounts to survival.
    • The central contradiction of contemporary capitalist rule is contained within the statement made by the science fiction author William Gibson, which I take the liberty to rework: the future is here; it awaits redistribution. Behind all the shock and awe of every new disruption and innovation lies the creeping suspicion, becoming more evident every day, confirmed by every new app, every new genetic breakthrough, every new medical procedure, that ready solutions to deprivation are being systematically withheld, diverted and accumulated such that our lives are getting manifestly worse. But, what is new about this contradiction is that a solution no longer requires a period of ‘catching up’ (the Bolshevik’s NEP) or a long transition from one ‘stage’ to the next, usually characterized by an intensification of regimes of work so as to stave off a return to ‘year zero’ and the deferment, in perpetuity, of that next stage. The dynamism and disruption of 21st century capitalism need not be counterposed by a state socialist model–this binary is (potentially) entirely superseded by the networking and computing power of the Bit Revolution. What is now possible, as in no other era of human history, is the harnessing of forces that make such a transition rapid, far reaching, deep and permanent, but on behalf of the commons, controlled by the commons. This scientific and technological power existed prior to 2010, but it had yet to reach scale. Today it has, or soon will. Harnessing the awesome powers of the Bit Revolution is essential, though not sufficient, for any revolutionary endeavor. Also as in no other time in human history is the possibility of the end of organized human life that this power, if left in the hands of corporations and the state, will almost certainly bring about. You don’t think so? Who could have imagined the sheer audacity of hubris exhibited by our masters of the universe in that epic shitting of the bed that was the electoral victory of Donald Trump? Who could have imagined that from a pant suit would emerge a giant penis upon which neoliberalism would trip? Truly anything is possible. Which means our revolution is possible, too.
    • If the above argument is true, it would be possible using the power of the Bit Revolution as applied to economics to imagine, to theorize, and therefore plan, a thorough going reorganization of the means of production and reproduction beginning with the elimination of that which is harmful and useless as the basis for the expansion of that which is healthy and useful. I know, who is to say what is healthy and useful? Well, we are. Just set money and markets aside, for the sake of argument. One could, and should, map what that economy would look like, in all its particulars, over time and across space, so as to bring it about. A central conceit of capitalism is that it must grow, and that growth is inextricably linked to progress; nothing could be further from the truth. It just needs to be reorganized and redistributed, again and again. Eternal growth and a general speeding up just as easily intensify inequality, even as they raise all boats. And if my boat is a dingy, yours a yacht, however much the sea level rises will never change that fact.
    • I am fond of arguing that any fundamental move towards freedom and equality will involve the forced expropriation of private property and its redeployment in the commons. This will never come about through legislation or elections alone. An all-too common response is “but where would you stop?” Bhaskar Sunkara addressed this issue through an essay that distinguishes personal from private property, i.e. your Kenny Loggins records from factories. My response is twofold: let’s start at the top and work our way down. Besides, what a delightful problem to have–not if we should expropriate wealth, but how far down the pyramid we should go in expropriating that wealth? Oh, and if by Kenny Loggins records you really mean a yacht for which that awful music was made (yacht rock), we will take that, too.