0:13

Hi everyone . You're listening to the Blockchain Socialist Podcast

0:16

. I'm your host , josh , and for today's

0:18

interview I have Nick Sernick

0:20

. He is the author of Platform Capitalism

0:22

and the book Inventing the Future and

0:24

, as well , he wrote the manifesto

0:27

for an accelerationist politics the

0:30

last two with Alex Williams and

0:32

he's also the co-worker of an upcoming book called

0:34

After Work A History of the Home and the

0:36

Right for Free Time , with his partner , helen

0:39

Hester , who wrote Xenofeminism . So

0:41

I think this is going to be a really interesting conversation

0:43

because , I mean , I think you're one of the

0:46

I guess one of the founding figures

0:48

of kind of bringing forth the idea

0:50

of accelerationism to left-wing political

0:53

thought . And it's really interesting

0:55

because I have talked to so many

0:57

people in the crypto world who describe themselves

1:00

as accelerationists and then

1:02

when I asked them if they've read some

1:05

of your work there tends to be

1:07

like a blank stare and like , oh , who is that ? So

1:11

maybe , to start , I thought it'd be interesting if

1:13

you could perhaps introduce yourself

1:15

and , yeah , where you're coming

1:17

from and the work that you've been doing around accelerationism

1:19

.

1:21

Yeah , yeah , thank you for having me on

1:23

, by the way . Yeah , I'm

1:25

not sure I'd describe myself necessarily as

1:27

an accelerationist anymore , and we can maybe get

1:30

into why that's the case later on .

1:31

Yeah .

1:33

But yeah , so actually 10 years ago now

1:35

, alex and I wrote the manifesto

1:37

for an accelerationist politics . We

1:40

sort of kicked off , along with Benjamin Noyes's

1:42

work , kicked off a lot of discussion about

1:44

what is accelerationism , what does it mean , and

1:47

, you know , I think , kicked off some fundamental questions

1:50

for the left as well . You

1:52

know , what does the left want ? So

1:55

, yeah , the manifesto for accelerationist politics . It

1:57

has sort of a weird origin , because Alex

2:00

and I were working on this book , inventing the Future

2:03

. We'd been working on it for a couple of years , and we'd

2:05

been having discussions , particularly with Mark Fisher

2:07

, about what's wrong with the left

2:09

, how can it do better , and

2:12

we were writing Inventing the Future , a sort of response

2:14

to these questions , and we were asked

2:17

by a friend of ours to

2:19

provide a small text

2:22

for this little art book

2:25

that he was putting together , and

2:27

so Alex and I decided well , you know , what we'll do is we'll

2:29

sort of condense what we're doing for Inventing

2:32

the Future . We'll condense it down , make

2:34

it highly polemical , like pure manifesto

2:36

form , and we wrote

2:38

it thinking that it would be published in this small

2:40

art collection and

2:42

like maybe 10 people would see it . What

2:46

ended up happening , though , was that another friend of ours

2:48

posted it online and

2:51

it just sort of went viral from there

2:53

completely unexpectedly . We

2:55

had no idea that it hit the nerve that

2:57

it did , but it did seem

2:59

to sort of spark a lot of intrigue

3:02

and controversy and thoughts and people . But

3:05

yeah , it was never meant for public consumption

3:08

in the sort of way that it ended

3:10

up happening . I

3:14

think it's probably for the best that we didn't write it for public

3:16

consumption , because I think it has this like

3:18

the sort of unfinished edge

3:20

to it and the sort of you know we would have added in more

3:22

nuances and qualifications and the

3:24

sort of the real punchiness

3:26

of it I think would have been lost if we'd been writing for the

3:29

public . But so

3:31

, yeah , it was released and then we've had

3:33

10 years of people declaring

3:35

themselves to be accelerationists in various

3:37

ways .

3:40

That's a really interesting story . I didn't know that . Yeah

3:43

, I sometimes wonder , like I

3:46

kind of like it when at

3:49

least like some kind of like what I think

3:51

are like important left wing political ideas get

3:53

summarized into like more punchy points

3:55

, just because I think it does tend to attract

3:57

more people . I think we

3:59

on the left sometimes have this tendency to be

4:01

overly academic and then like try to add

4:04

a lot of nuance to things to , which makes

4:06

it like less , like

4:10

not able to be understood or consumed

4:12

by someone outside of

4:14

like the circle , I guess . Yeah

4:17

, I guess it has that double effect of that

4:19

it goes viral and everybody thinks that they're an accelerationist

4:22

.

4:22

now yeah , and it

4:24

also becomes sort of wildly open to interpretation

4:26

. You know these sort of highly condensed formulations

4:29

that can just be unpacked

4:31

in different ways . Yeah , I

4:33

think that's part of its success , but it's as an

4:35

academic . I'm also like I'd

4:38

like to have more qualifications .

4:41

Yeah , that's fair . So

4:43

the I figured it would be interesting to just

4:47

recite the first quote for people who maybe

4:49

haven't come across the manifesto

4:51

. It says at the very top it's

4:53

just like a web page with , I think it's on like

4:55

60 points or something like that Accelerationism

4:58

pushes towards a future that is more modern

5:01

and alternative modernity that neoliberalism

5:03

is inherently unable to generate . So

5:06

, like what , from what I understand about accelerationism

5:09

, is that at least you

5:11

know the type of accelerationism on the left

5:13

is that it's meant to be a answer

5:15

to neoliberalism or like to sort

5:18

of bring to light the things that

5:20

the left is struggling on during

5:22

this age of neoliberalism , because neoliberalism

5:25

has been quite successful in suppressing

5:27

the left in many ways , and

5:30

I think we just like haven't really figured

5:32

out a way or like a viable path that

5:34

we can all kind of agree on to like move

5:36

forward . And that's

5:38

kind of like the feeling that I had about

5:40

about accelerationism and

5:42

what it kind of brings . But but

5:45

yeah , then I think maybe it would be interesting to hear from you like

5:47

, what do you think of it now

5:49

as a concept in this moment and how

5:52

have you seen it evolve over the years ?

5:56

Yeah , so I think that that opening quote

5:58

is a nice little summary . Accelerationism

6:00

pushes towards a future that is more modern

6:02

and alternative , modernity that neoliberalism

6:05

is inherently unable to generate

6:07

. And I would say you know

6:09

the basic premise builds off of Deleuze

6:11

and Gatorre's work . So they talk

6:13

about capitalism as this de-territorializing

6:16

force , particularly relative to feudal

6:18

relationships and the

6:20

ways in which the hierarchies of feudalism get

6:23

completely broken apart

6:25

as capitalism emerges

6:27

and the market forces spread . The

6:29

point of Deleuze and Gatorre's work , though , is that it's not

6:31

just a de-territorializing force , it also re-territorializes

6:35

society on new

6:37

structures , particularly

6:39

something like wage labor . So the fact

6:41

that you know , yes , you're freed from feudal

6:44

relations , but you're also freed from the means

6:46

of reproduction . So , suddenly , you have

6:48

to go to the market , sell your

6:50

labor time in order to be able

6:52

to actually survive under capitalism . And

6:55

this becomes , you know , the key lynch point of capitalism

6:57

is that the vast majority

6:59

of humanity has to go into the labor

7:01

market in order to survive . They

7:03

have to generate surplus . For capitalists , this

7:06

becomes what Sorin Maui say

7:08

. You know , it's his mode of domination for capitalism

7:10

. So , yes , capitalism

7:13

is liberating on one hand , but it's completely

7:15

constraining and dominating on the other

7:17

hand . And Deleuze and Gatorre say well , the

7:19

accelerationist moment is to push beyond that

7:21

, you know , to sort of unbind

7:23

these things further than

7:25

what capitalism would allow . And

7:28

that's , you know , that's what Alex and I took as the basic sort

7:31

of premise of accelerationism is that actually

7:33

, capitalism , for all its ideology

7:35

of freedom and innovation

7:38

and lack of constraint , is

7:40

in fact a highly constraining system , particularly

7:42

for the vast majority of humanity . And

7:45

so our argument

7:47

is that , you know , to get beyond , well , we

7:49

have to go beyond capitalism in order to actually

7:52

bring about this sort of full system

7:54

of freedom and opportunity

7:56

and actual

7:59

dynamism . So

8:01

, yeah , that was , you know , that was the basic sort of premise we took

8:03

from it

8:05

. And then , yeah , we've sort of had , you know , strategic

8:08

thoughts about , well , how do we

8:10

do that ? And

8:12

this is where the focus on wage labor becomes

8:15

quite important . And then , crucially , the

8:17

focus on automation , things like universal

8:19

basic income , shorter working week , basically

8:22

, if wage labor is the key sort of linchpin

8:24

of the capitalist mode of production or

8:26

, you know , one of the key linchpins of the system

8:28

, undermining that

8:31

little you know structural element

8:33

can have drastic effects

8:36

and can really lead to potential

8:38

for a new system . And so that's why

8:40

a lot of our focus has been on work

8:42

and wage , labor and automation and things

8:45

like a basic income and a shorter working week is because

8:47

that to us seems to be one of the

8:49

strategic points that you can really

8:51

leverage and focus on

8:53

to try , and you know , extract ourselves

8:55

out of capitalism into something better .

8:59

Yes , I have so

9:01

much to say about that . Like so

9:05

for maybe for people , in case they don't understand

9:08

, maybe it would be worth defining a bit what's

9:10

, because they can be complicated terms and concepts

9:12

for people . De-territorialization and

9:14

, you know , territorialization

9:16

, yeah so .

9:17

I mean the simplest way to sort of think

9:19

about it , without going into like massive delusional

9:22

metaphysics in any way . De-territorialization

9:26

you can sort of think of

9:30

as a rigidly hierarchical

9:32

social system , or rigid

9:34

social system doesn't necessarily have to be hierarchical

9:37

, but a rigid social system which

9:39

is suddenly starting

9:41

to change and become something else

9:43

. It's

9:45

not just a social system necessarily , so

9:47

they'll also talk about , you know , sort of the

9:51

nature of the self , the nature of identity and

9:53

the ways in which it becomes territorialized and

9:55

the way in which it becomes rigid . But

9:59

de-territorialization is sort of the process of

10:01

that becoming something

10:03

else . And

10:05

so the argument is that the feudal system

10:07

was based upon , you know , sort of a lowered peasant relationship

10:10

and you know , ultimately peaks

10:12

at the monarch , that

10:15

sort of system of feudal relations

10:17

and you know relationships of bondage

10:20

and debt and things like that . That

10:23

social system was massively

10:25

transformed by the emergence

10:27

of capitalism , particularly in England and

10:29

then elsewhere around the world . Market

10:32

relationships tend to get rid

10:34

of that feudal

10:37

relationship of bondage and

10:41

debt , at least in the form that

10:43

it took in feudalism . But

10:45

then you start to have , well , this nominal

10:47

equality of people . So everybody

10:50

is free to go and find whatever job they

10:52

want . They're free to enter into any contract that they

10:54

want . This is the ostensible equality and freedom

10:56

of capitalism , but of course , in reality

10:58

that's not actually the case . You know , you can't pick

11:01

and choose exactly what job you want . You might have

11:03

a selection of jobs and

11:05

of course there's massive differences between you

11:09

know people's income , people's wealth that they

11:11

rely upon , and then

11:13

the massive , you know , class divide

11:15

between workers and owners

11:17

of capital . So

11:19

, yeah , so that becomes the new rigid system

11:22

of capitalism . Is that that sort of class

11:24

divide and its expression

11:26

in a variety of different ways

11:28

under capitalism ?

11:30

Right . So , like I understand it , you know , maybe

11:33

quite crudely , that there is like

11:35

a territory always exists . There are always like

11:37

as a social , existing social

11:39

structure , and that is the territory . And

11:43

you know , under feudalism we have the nobility and

11:45

whoever else , and then with the

11:47

sort of growth of capitalism

11:50

as a mode of production and sort

11:52

of like the bourgeois class of people

11:54

who were previously the artisans , they

11:56

were able to push on

11:58

that social structure and change it over time

12:01

, and that changing happens

12:04

in two directions One is the removal

12:07

of the existing social structure and then the other

12:09

is the creation of new social structures

12:11

, and so that's de territorializing as

12:13

a removal , and then re territorializing is

12:15

the creation of a new social structure , and

12:18

so this is important . But I think , really , I

12:21

think it's just like a and it's an interesting

12:23

conceptual framework to think about things

12:25

that , um , that other

12:27

thinkers have kind of already identified , I

12:29

think in different ways . Like I think you

12:31

know , I think it's Schimpeter who had this idea of creative

12:34

destruction , um , which is also

12:36

kind of , I think , a very similar thing , although he was speaking about it

12:38

specifically within capitalism there

12:40

is creative destruction where they're through

12:42

the competition of capitalist forces

12:44

, etc . Um , but

12:47

this is a really important concept , I

12:49

think , for the left to understand , perhaps in order to think

12:51

about like the uh

12:54

, to understand the process in which , if

12:56

you want to change the system this is kind of like

12:58

broad abstract concepts

13:00

to understand how that would happen . We have to destroy

13:03

social structures and create new ones

13:05

. At the same time , we have to re-territorialize into

13:07

something else , similar to how capitalism

13:09

did that to feudalism . I guess I

13:11

don't know if that sounds

13:14

correct in my offer .

13:15

Yeah , yeah , yeah , I would agree with that , um

13:18

, and I think it is sort of these . It's

13:20

these big historical questions about

13:22

the shifts between different modes of production . That's

13:25

fundamentally what , well , particularly Marxist

13:27

thinking is interested in . Um

13:29

, you know , how do these changes , how

13:31

have they historically happened ? And

13:33

, crucially , the strategic question of how might they

13:35

happen in the future , right , um , and

13:38

you know , is the model

13:40

of feudalism to capitalism ? Is that

13:42

a model for capitalism to communism

13:45

, or is it going to be something different ? Um

13:47

, but yeah , there is . You know , I

13:50

think one of the the

13:53

important points of the accelerationist claim

13:55

from De Lausangetari is that , you

13:57

know , capitalism is a massively constraining system

14:00

. It's a system of domination and oppression and

14:02

exploitation . Um , it's

14:04

not this system of freedom

14:07

that , uh , its proponents want to present it as .

14:10

Mm , yeah , yeah , I think , yeah

14:12

, there there are some uh

14:14

it's like we we

14:16

may have solved certain problems from

14:19

feudalism that a lot of people may

14:21

have maybe at the time as a peasant

14:23

, for pointing out as being huge problems , and maybe we have

14:25

fixed those problems in one way , but we have perhaps

14:28

created new ones , uh , in that process

14:30

. Um , and

14:32

I think , when it comes to maybe accelerationism

14:35

in the like right now , sense

14:37

, uh , of course technology

14:39

is like an important part of that equation

14:42

. I think like it's hard to , at this

14:44

moment , be like to not think that technology

14:47

is not important or that , like the innovations

14:50

and the way and the speed at which technology has changed

14:52

over the past years , like clearly

14:54

there is , there has been this

14:57

de-territorialization or creative

14:59

destruction happening in our lives that if you've lived

15:01

for the past couple of decades , you've like noticed like

15:03

how the way that we relate to each

15:05

other has kind of changed with the , with

15:08

smartphones , with like the internet , with

15:10

all these things , and so there has

15:12

been perhaps this uh destruction

15:14

of certain social structures , I think through the internet

15:16

, perhaps maybe you could argue that people have

15:18

become more aware of like their sexual

15:21

orientation or like their gender identity

15:23

, because they finally were able to get getting

15:25

to know people who also felt similarly

15:27

. But at the same time , you know , the

15:30

internet is a giant surveillance machine . So it was like

15:32

you know . But so again , those

15:34

, those processes are still happening and technology

15:37

is , just like right now , one of the main

15:39

drivers of that . Perhaps

15:41

you can say arguably .

15:43

Yeah , um , and I think that's one of the more

15:46

controversial points about the accelerationist

15:49

manifesto is that it did take sort of an optimistic

15:51

perspective on

15:53

technology . Um , and

15:55

I think , for for a lot of people on

15:57

the left , particularly amongst academics

16:00

on the left , you

16:02

know , the default position is just critical , critical

16:04

, critical towards technology , and

16:06

understandably so in many ways , because

16:09

these are technologies developed by capitalist and

16:11

then deployed by capitalist and used by capitalist

16:13

, and you know they do serve

16:15

particular , you

16:17

know , oppressive and exploitative functions oftentimes

16:20

. But our , you

16:22

know our point in the manifesto and elsewhere has

16:24

always been that well , there's that doesn't

16:27

exhaust the potentials of any given technology

16:29

, that there are potentials beyond just simply

16:31

what are developed

16:33

in it . And this is a point from , you

16:35

know , science and technology studies which has long

16:37

shown that the

16:40

development of technologies doesn't

16:42

like establish and firmly solidify

16:45

the potentials of the technology . One

16:47

of my favorite examples of this is the

16:50

, the inventor of the machine gun , and famously

16:52

thought that the machine gun was

16:54

going to end war because it

16:56

was just too terrible of a weapon

16:58

and people would just be like , well

17:00

, no , we're not fighting anymore . Didn't

17:02

happen to be the case , of course , but

17:04

you know the developers' intentions

17:07

and ideas for the designs don't constrain

17:09

what's possible .

17:11

Yeah , that's so . That's like not

17:14

not to shill , but in my book I talk

17:16

about , I try to use that framework as well

17:19

as thinking about blockchain and crypto . But yeah

17:21

, I think generally there

17:24

sometimes is this well

17:26

, I mean one . The left , for

17:29

whatever reason , has a lot of academics one

17:31

way or another in many ways , and

17:33

academics love to like question

17:36

and like love to problematize

17:38

and whatever eyes word you

17:40

want to say the ways

17:42

in which things do or do not appear

17:45

as they as they seem . I

17:48

sometimes wonder , like is it like

17:51

? In some ways , I'm just like always back and forth

17:53

. I'm like is that a useful thing always to

17:55

do that ? Like when can we have a

17:57

place where we can like accept

17:59

that there is like going to be like

18:01

nuance and there are answers that we

18:03

cannot answer right now until we begin to

18:05

do the thing ? Sometimes , I

18:08

think for a lot of people who

18:11

, like I've met just a lot of people who , like

18:13

, are ostensibly progressive or like

18:15

that they like , they like internally

18:18

, like they feel like they're on

18:20

the left in one way or another , even though but

18:22

they're not going to read like tomes

18:24

of political theory or like whatever

18:26

else , like they're not going to spend the

18:28

time doing that and so like , but

18:30

at the same time , I think they feel like they

18:33

can't do anything on the left . Like that , there

18:35

is nothing for them to do . So the thing that

18:37

they do do is they go and make a

18:39

startup or something like that , because

18:41

, like that , that's the avenue available to them

18:43

for creating change in something that

18:45

they feel like they can make change in some way .

18:48

Yeah , I would agree . I think there's . You know , there

18:50

is sort of a paralysis

18:52

amongst the academic left in many ways and I

18:54

think , yeah

18:57

, exactly that desire to

18:59

do something , the desire to be , to

19:01

have some agency in some way , ends up getting expressed

19:03

in these weird ways , oftentimes

19:06

sort of turned in words , you know , vitriol towards

19:08

the left as well , which is problematic

19:12

in its own way .

19:13

Sure , yeah , and then they call themselves accelerationists

19:15

, but

19:18

it's of course , I think it's like people with good intentions

19:20

. So , you

19:23

know , it's something that I try to make , especially

19:25

in crypto world . I meet a lot of people clearly with very

19:27

good intentions , but they have not

19:29

, I think , thought completely through . Sort

19:31

of the thing that they're doing , and like how it relates to

19:33

capital or capitalism , is

19:35

just that they're just trying to do their

19:37

best within like the framework that they understand the world

19:39

in .

19:40

Yeah , yeah .

19:42

But yeah , I think maybe it

19:44

would be good to talk a bit about maybe

19:46

the differences between right

19:48

and left accelerationism . So

19:51

there are . I think from what I understand there

19:53

is like this kind of like

19:55

. The story that I know about is kind of like the

19:57

, the CCRU in the UK

20:00

and how there was this split in

20:02

which kind of Nick Land was kind of representative

20:04

of right accelerationism , which from

20:07

what I understand is like a quite racist one

20:09

version of accelerationism , and then Mark

20:11

Fisher maybe you could say was like more on the left

20:14

accelerationist side . But I was wondering if you

20:16

can maybe elucidate some of that a

20:18

bit more .

20:19

Yeah , I think it's . Maybe it's

20:22

actually slightly more complicated , I would say , because

20:24

I think you know Mark studied

20:26

with Nick Land and you know

20:29

there's that whole CCR group which sort

20:31

of you know a massive

20:33

creative flourishing of ideas , and

20:37

not just ideas . You know that people went on to do all sorts

20:39

of amazing artistic work as well and

20:41

scholarly work and all sorts of things . But

20:44

I think you know you have this moment in the 90s it's

20:47

the end of history which

20:49

everybody sort of mocks nowadays . But

20:51

at the same time that people

20:53

were mocking it , it was sort of a lived

20:55

reality which is like , well , yeah

20:57

, liberal , democratic capitalism is

21:00

the sort of apex

21:02

of human society and the

21:04

USSR is heading towards it and

21:07

you know China is having

21:09

market reforms and turning towards capitalism

21:11

. You know there was

21:13

, there

21:15

was a real sense that capitalism had won , I think

21:17

in the 1990s , and

21:19

that there was no real alternative . And

21:21

I think what you get in CCRU in many ways

21:23

is a

21:26

quite sort of I

21:32

mean today we'd call it like an edgelord sort of take

21:34

on on that moment . You know

21:37

, what can we do with this sort of stuff ? And like , what

21:40

does it all mean ? And Nick Land sort of took

21:42

, you know , deleuze and Gatorie and his work on

21:44

Patae and stuff and

21:46

sort of said , well , yes , capitalism is the

21:49

fundamental driving force

21:51

of human history , because

21:53

actually Deleuze and Gatorie's work , all previous

21:55

human societies have had to actively

21:59

ward off the emergence of capitalism

22:01

as a sort of threat to the social order

22:03

, and so it's always been this driving force

22:05

. And then eventually it's unleashed and

22:08

he just sort of ran with

22:10

the idea of capitalism as the active agent of

22:12

history and said well , ultimately

22:14

there are no people . You know

22:17

, there's no sense of individuals , we're just

22:19

. You know , we think of ourselves as humans , but actually

22:21

we're driven by the sort of fundamental

22:23

biological and social systems which are completely

22:25

outside of us and driven by the demands

22:28

of capital . And you

22:30

know , there's really sort of again a sort of an edgelord

22:33

take on on the end of history . And

22:37

, yeah , people just sort of built upon

22:39

these ideas and sort of pushed

22:43

Deleuze and Gatorie's work into this end

22:45

of history moment . And

22:47

I think at that point there isn't really a right or a left

22:50

accelerationism , because in

22:52

many ways it is like it's

22:55

not any sort of you

22:57

know , it's not any sort of conservative argument

23:00

in any way , like- .

23:02

It's an observation .

23:04

It's an observation , yeah , in many ways , and

23:07

it's not marshaled towards

23:09

as we see Nic Landu today . It's not marshaled

23:11

towards the idea of racial hierarchies

23:13

or anything like that . This

23:16

is , you know , the big turn in his

23:18

sort of thinking . So

23:21

, yeah , it's not right or left in

23:23

any simple sense . At that moment , eventually

23:26

, I think Alex

23:29

and I sort of tried to argue for left

23:31

accelerationism , what that might mean , and

23:34

at the same time , weirdly

23:36

enough so Nic

23:38

Land had disappeared for like 15

23:41

years when we wrote the manifesto

23:43

. He just sort of disappeared off to China

23:45

. Nobody heard anything from him

23:47

. I think you

23:50

know he started writing this like column

23:53

in some Chinese newspaper which

23:55

was if you go back to it

23:57

you can find like sort of classic

23:59

land , like there's arguments about let's

24:02

take apart the earth in order to make it more efficient

24:04

, like physically , take apart the entire

24:07

planetary mass in order

24:09

to make it more computationally efficient . And

24:12

then he's , you know , he's

24:14

disappeared . We write this manifesto and then a little

24:16

while afterwards he starts

24:18

to get this more public face and he's

24:21

turned into a massive racist . Or it's always

24:23

been there and it's just always been sort of hidden . But

24:27

you start to get this more clear split between

24:29

the left and the right , accelerationism . So the

24:31

left saying , well , no , actually capitalism

24:33

is not the agent of history and that it's

24:36

not the final stage

24:38

of human history , it's

24:40

not this liberating force that it presents itself

24:42

as . And

24:44

then you get Nic Land , sort of arguing against

24:47

early Nic Land , I would say , because early

24:49

Nic Land is just like any

24:51

sort of identity , any sort of social structure will

24:53

just be completely decimated by the

24:56

progressive force of capitalism . And

24:59

then contemporary Nic Land

25:01

is sort of like well , all that stuff I said

25:03

about identities and social structures , let's

25:06

take it back . There is racial hierarchies and

25:10

he starts arguing for this really like

25:13

middle age conservative sort

25:15

of argument about

25:18

the

25:20

reality of races and the hierarchies involved

25:22

and all sort of stuff . You

25:24

know , the sort of what was once radical

25:27

about his thinking , I think , is completely disappeared

25:29

and he's just become a boomer racist

25:31

in many ways .

25:34

That's very interesting . But , yeah

25:36

, to come from , I mean

25:39

, yeah , nic Land , as far as I understand

25:41

I haven't read that much of him because he's quite difficult

25:43

for me to understand of the work that I've read

25:45

, but he uses

25:47

a lot of like left

25:49

like . He uses like prominent

25:52

left wing thinkers in

25:54

order and their concepts and ideas in order

25:56

to come to very kind

25:59

of weird conclusions . I guess . It's

26:02

almost like I've heard it described to me

26:04

as like I think kind of you said it as well he's like chosen

26:07

the side of capitalism that he's like like

26:10

no , like like . There is

26:12

perhaps this somewhat

26:15

, for some people can feel maybe

26:17

perhaps a little bit depressing of an observation to make

26:20

. And

26:22

so there's like one side where

26:24

either you can be maybe like the optimist

26:26

and say like no , if we understand it , then we can change

26:29

it , or on the other side , you

26:31

can just be a bit of a more extreme

26:33

nihilist and say we can't do anything

26:35

about it , embrace like the

26:37

horrors , I guess , of capitalism and

26:39

like it's only going to intensify

26:42

.

26:42

Yeah , yeah exactly , I think , chosen

26:45

the side of capital is . This exactly

26:48

describes him well .

26:49

Yeah , but what's interesting as

26:52

well is that of

26:55

all of the like I guess more most

26:57

prominent people that I know that would

26:59

fall under accelerationism the gland is the only

27:01

one to have written something

27:04

on cryptocurrency Like

27:06

he wrote , like the piece on Bitcoin

27:08

and how it kind of solved the

27:11

problem of time for capital , something

27:13

like that .

27:14

Yeah , I don't think that piece has aged very

27:16

well though . I

27:19

mean it was sort of an interesting

27:21

provocative piece about

27:24

the Kantian transcendental and the

27:26

nature of the space here , temporal

27:28

manifolds and things , and

27:31

it's interesting , I think .

27:32

but it

27:35

doesn't work . I mean , I think this

27:37

is so . Part of the thing

27:39

that I observe is that it

27:42

like isn't the type of conclusion that

27:44

I would want to go to or anything like that , and it's something that I can

27:46

argue against . But I think

27:48

because he was like one of the only ones

27:50

to have written about like cryptocurrency

27:53

, which has become just like more and more of like

27:55

a thing that people are interested in and like I

27:58

don't know people kind of like looking

28:01

for answers about the world . I

28:03

think that , like in crypto world , there's just a

28:05

lot of people who kind of they

28:07

are , say , anti-establishment

28:10

, they want to see the world to change

28:13

drastically and they're looking for answers , and crypto

28:15

kind of appears as this interesting place

28:17

where maybe answers could be created

28:20

. The only

28:22

kind of like one of the thinkers

28:24

that they find is Nick Land , I

28:27

think , and so like they get into Nick Land and so like

28:29

. Now I don't know if you've gone

28:32

that deep into the rabbit hole

28:34

, but you have one

28:37

, especially like one NFT project

28:39

called Milates , which

28:42

are really into like accelerationist

28:44

thoughts from a couple of different angles

28:46

. I don't know too much about them , but I know a lot of them

28:48

. They have

28:51

like a very like a lot of espoused

28:53

, like landian accelerationism

28:55

in like it's

28:58

hard to tell with a lot of these things , Like it feels like

29:00

half ironic but then half like , do

29:02

you actually believe that ? And

29:05

it seems like they do a little bit . So I don't

29:07

know , yeah , I don't know if you

29:10

have any thoughts on that .

29:12

Yeah , I mean I don't know those projects

29:14

in particular . I think there is , I

29:18

mean , the social

29:20

media does foster this edge lord

29:22

sort of personality of just like being

29:25

provocative for its own sake , and

29:27

I think that sort of explains part

29:29

of it . I mean , I think , on an optimistic

29:31

level , I completely agree that I think a lot of people in crypto

29:34

are anti-establishment and

29:37

there is a positive sentiment there to work with

29:39

. You know , the existing social order is

29:41

failing so many people and

29:44

you know it's right to

29:46

be critical of it . How

29:48

you attribute the source of that failure

29:51

determines everything else really

29:53

, but

29:57

there is a certain positive aspect to

29:59

that critical stance . Yeah

30:03

, I think as well you're right about the sort of . You

30:07

know you get into the crypto sphere and you want

30:09

to read something interesting on it and

30:11

the only stuff that is really written

30:13

on it is by people from the right , not necessarily

30:16

just Nick Land , but you know also it's of other people from

30:18

the right and I think the discourse

30:20

around it is often dominated by those perspectives

30:23

. And you know , when you go

30:25

to sort of left writing on

30:27

the crypto space , it tends

30:29

to just be complete denial , denunciation

30:32

of anything

30:34

of value in it . So

30:37

I think you know that's it's you

30:40

know , if you're interested in this technology , the only

30:42

place to turn often is towards the right

30:44

.

30:45

Right . Yeah , I think one of the things that's kind of missing

30:47

, like I think it's fine

30:50

for people to have their criticisms

30:52

, I think it's just like politically not useful

30:54

to kind of outright

30:57

reject things in

31:00

the way that has been the reaction

31:02

with crypto on the left generally , and I think that's kind

31:04

of why I started , you know

31:06

, writing and doing podcasts , just because I

31:08

was like , well , I feel like

31:10

this is a bad idea , like the

31:12

way that it's kind of going right now and somebody

31:14

has to do it , and I made

31:17

the unfortunate decision to say why don't I try

31:19

and do it ? And

31:21

been trying to put forth , like certain things and

31:23

trying to bring more people in from

31:25

a to see a more , I

31:27

guess , nuanced picture about it or

31:29

to think about it in a slightly

31:32

different way . That's what I'm hoping , hoping

31:35

what I'm doing pushes in that

31:37

direction , at least .

31:39

Yeah , exactly , I think that's why you know your sort

31:41

of work is so important to be able to have

31:43

that sort of voice in the space .

31:45

Thank you , hi

31:47

, everyone . If you're enjoying this episode so far , be

31:49

sure to subscribe , leave a review , share

31:51

with a friend and join the crypto leftist communities

31:54

on Discord or Reddit , which you can find links to in

31:56

the show notes . If you're enjoying the episode or

31:58

find the content to make important , you can pitch into my efforts

32:00

, starting at $3 a month on patreoncom

32:02

slash the blockchain socialists to help me out and

32:04

join the nearly 100 other patrons

32:06

that contribute financially , which really helps

32:09

, since making this stuff isn't free in terms of money

32:11

or time . As a patron , you'll get a shout out on

32:13

an episode and access to bonus

32:15

content like Q&A episodes . You can submit

32:17

and vote on questions you'd like me to answer and I'll give my

32:19

thoughts in roughly 20 minutes . The current

32:21

bonus episodes have so far explored plenty

32:23

of topics , including how co-ops and dows

32:25

relate , whether there is a socialist blockchain

32:27

, a review of previous crypto events I've been to

32:29

and recently , a video reaction

32:32

to an episode of the D program . Of

32:34

course , I'll still be making free contents like

32:36

this episode to help spread the message that blockchain

32:39

doesn't need to be used to further entrench capitalist exploitation

32:41

, if we put our efforts into it . So if that message

32:43

resonates with you . I hope you'll consider helping out

32:45

. So

32:49

crypto has a lot of people who

32:51

are , or who say that they are

32:53

, accelerationists in some way and

32:56

I'm curious , like if you have any thoughts as to why

32:58

you think that is like . What

33:00

do you think it is about accelerationism

33:02

that attract someone who's interested

33:04

in crypto in that direction

33:07

?

33:08

Yeah , I mean , I think one aspect of

33:10

it is the

33:12

sort of the

33:15

under-determined nature of

33:17

the idea . So

33:20

accelerationism you say the word and

33:22

immediately it brings to mind a

33:25

variety of different things , but it doesn't

33:27

necessarily point in any one particular direction

33:29

, left or right , or towards any

33:31

particular ideology . I

33:34

think what sort of happens since the manifesto

33:36

and the early discourse

33:38

around what accelerationism is

33:40

? There seems to be the sort of very

33:43

memeable quality to the term

33:45

. Everybody

33:47

decides their L-AC on Twitter , or

33:50

their R-AC or their U-AC or their E-AC

33:52

or whatever the case might be

33:54

.

33:55

I think , many letters before the AC . Exactly

33:57

exactly .

33:58

I don't know what they were , and

34:01

I think that's . I think it's largely good . I

34:04

think the multiplication of variants of

34:06

it , I think , is sort

34:09

of a nicely creative moment , even

34:11

if most of these variants aren't particularly interesting in

34:14

and of themselves , but I think . So

34:16

that's part of it is

34:18

that it's under-determined as an idea and therefore

34:21

it could be picked up by a lot of different

34:23

people and sort of give

34:25

a semblance of it being

34:27

a more coherent , long-established

34:29

idea than it necessarily may be . The other sort

34:32

of aspect is , well

34:34

, accelerationism . What are you

34:36

accelerating ? The big question I always get and

34:38

this is partly why I think the term isn't really useful

34:41

anymore , because it is . I

34:43

think it's a fundamentally wrong

34:45

question . But if you describe

34:47

yourself as an accelerationist and you want to say

34:49

, well , we're going to accelerate something , you

34:52

could accelerate anything . This is where you get these

34:54

variants from . You can accelerate whatever you want . It

34:57

could be artificial intelligence , you could accelerate

34:59

anything Artificial intelligence . It could be crypto

35:01

, it could

35:03

be whatever the case might be . So

35:07

I think this has allowed people to really pick up the idea

35:09

as well , to say , well , this is what

35:11

I want and I want to accelerate this , and

35:14

therefore I'm an accelerationist of

35:16

this and

35:18

it's sort of it's clearly

35:21

a very vulgar idea and interpretation

35:23

of it , but I think it allows people

35:25

to try and present

35:29

themselves as having a particular ideology

35:32

or identity that they may not otherwise

35:34

have . It sort of gives a name to something .

35:37

Right , right . So I'm curious how

35:39

do you answer that question when you

35:41

are asked that what

35:43

are we accelerating and why ? That's the

35:45

wrong question to be asking , I guess .

35:48

Well , it's

35:51

maybe not necessarily the wrong question . I think

35:53

it's maybe just it's a misleading

35:55

question , because I think a lot of people will go on to

35:57

say to

36:00

accelerate the contradictions in capitalism in

36:02

order to , you know , heighten

36:04

the conflict between classes and

36:06

therefore bring about the revolution . It's

36:08

the most vulgar version of this

36:10

.

36:10

We need apocalypse first to bring about any

36:13

good .

36:14

Yeah , I

36:17

think it's a completely naive idea , but

36:20

some people do hold onto it . Then

36:23

, you know , I would say you know , if you're accelerating

36:25

anything , it's freedom . I think freedom is

36:27

at the heart of Alex and

36:29

I's work . But freedom

36:32

is not this sort of

36:34

it's not this liberal

36:36

idea of a completely autonomous subject . In

36:39

fact , you know you have to think about the ways in which we're

36:41

interdependent with each other

36:43

. But then it's

36:45

also this is where I have a lot of problems

36:47

with sort of classic philosophical

36:50

ideas of freedom . Freedom is not just

36:52

something that's contained within us , within

36:54

our bodies or our minds . Freedom

36:57

is actually something which is augmented by technologies

36:59

. You know , in

37:01

inventing the future , we'll talk about synthetic freedom

37:03

. You know , freedom is something which actually has to

37:05

be built . It's not something

37:07

that's like you take away constraints and it's just lying

37:10

there waiting . It's something which requires

37:12

the building of proper institutions

37:14

, proper social systems

37:17

, but then also proper material infrastructure

37:19

in order to be able

37:21

to actually expand freedom universally

37:24

. So freedom is not just

37:26

a matter of like . You know , accelerating freedom is

37:28

not just a matter of giving some

37:30

people more freedom , but also giving everybody

37:32

freedom , like an absolutely universal take

37:35

on this idea . So

37:37

this is where I think a lot of our optimism or

37:40

maybe not optimism our

37:42

hope for technology comes from . Is that , well

37:44

, technology does allow you to do new

37:47

things , more things , and

37:50

so you have to think about it as part of

37:52

the project of freedom , of expanding freedom

37:54

.

37:55

I love that . I can't wait to use

37:57

that in a conversation . It

38:01

makes me think of I don't know . It

38:06

appeals to , maybe , the sensibilities of someone

38:08

who is I don't know , who

38:10

considers themselves to be more on the right , or something like

38:12

that . One of the other

38:14

ways that I've heard it kind of describe is

38:17

that it's not about accelerating

38:19

something . It's the acknowledgments that things

38:22

are accelerating , that

38:24

it isn't necessarily a program

38:26

in itself , but that things

38:29

are already accelerating and we need to respond

38:31

to it in some way .

38:34

I think that's partly like the

38:37

unconditional accelerationist approach

38:39

. From what I can gather , it

38:42

ends up being a very fatalist approach because it just says

38:44

well , capital does what capital does and

38:46

we're just here , along for the ride

38:48

. Political action

38:50

is impotent . Any sort of

38:52

human agency is basically

38:55

an illusion . Therefore

38:57

, we're here for the ride of capital Again

39:01

. I think it's a quite provocative argument

39:03

and interesting for

39:05

that , but

39:07

I don't agree with that . I

39:10

don't agree , actually , that our contemporary

39:12

system is accelerating . If

39:14

anything , I think it's slowing down , which

39:17

sort of goes against , I think , the phenomenological

39:20

sense that we have of things speeding

39:22

up and changing rapidly . But

39:24

actually , if you look 150

39:27

years ago , the ways in which

39:29

things were changing during the Industrial Revolution was

39:31

massively more significant

39:33

than what we have nowadays . So

39:37

if you look at a variety of measures whether it

39:39

be

39:41

crude measures of technological progress how many

39:44

patents are being applied for

39:46

and used , it's been decreasing since

39:48

the 1970s

39:50

. Part measures like productivity , which basically say

39:52

well , how much is the economy changing

39:54

? How much are we automating of it ? Productivity

39:57

growth has been declining since the 1970s

40:01

. Economic growth for

40:03

the leading countries has been declining since

40:05

the 1970s

40:08

. We're heading towards a period of more

40:10

and more economic stagnation and , I think , technological

40:12

stagnation in a weird way as well

40:14

. Yeah

40:16

, we have smartphones now , but that's the

40:18

only major new innovation

40:21

until recently . I would say . With

40:23

artificial intelligence , even

40:26

smartphones are based upon technology we discovered

40:28

in World War II . It's

40:32

not like some fundamental rethinking of things , it's

40:34

just sort of taking components we've already had and

40:36

putting them together in different ways . Interesting

40:39

.

40:40

At . That observation , I imagine appeals

40:42

to a lot of , I

40:45

guess , like petit bourgeois sentiments

40:48

that things are slowing

40:50

down and if you're

40:53

a sort of small scale entrepreneur

40:56

, then that seems bad

40:58

to you because you won't be able to break into

41:00

the stratosphere

41:02

of the bourgeois class , who will

41:04

be forever stuck at

41:06

the bottom of the top . I guess I

41:10

think there is a certain yeah

41:14

, those type of conditions can create

41:16

certain sentiments in

41:18

people like that . I think there are quite

41:21

a few people like that in the technology space .

41:24

One other thing I find interesting just on that

41:26

point startups

41:28

. We think everybody has . We

41:30

think there's a multitude of startups like new startups

41:33

nowadays , but actually new business

41:36

formation has been again in decline since

41:38

the 1970s . It's weird

41:40

. It's almost like something happened in the 1970s

41:43

, this epochal crisis of capitalism which

41:45

still hasn't fully been resolved . Elimeprism

41:48

was the attempt to resolve it and

41:51

it did resolve it in some ways , but these

41:54

fundamental indicators of technological

41:57

change and economic growth have all been

41:59

in decline for decades now .

42:01

Interesting . What

42:04

I find really interesting is on the left

42:06

we'll say everything changed in the 70s because

42:08

of the start of neoliberalism and

42:11

neoliberal economic policy . Then

42:13

I hear a lot on the right . They'll say everything

42:15

changed in 1970 because we

42:17

moved away from the gold standard . There's

42:21

a website , what happened in 1972 or

42:23

whatever , which all is just like gold

42:25

standard ended and then everything plummeted . I

42:29

think it looks very convincing for a lot of those

42:31

types of people because it's also

42:33

more difficult to explain neoliberal

42:36

economic policy that happened in the 1970s

42:39

at the same time .

42:42

I don't know if you had

42:44

any thoughts on that . Yeah , I mean , the 1970s

42:47

were momentous . I

42:49

think the 2020s might be as momentous

42:52

, but we'll see . But

42:55

I think there's so many things going on

42:57

that it leads itself up into a variety

42:59

of different interpretations . Again

43:01

, what is the source of the problem ? We can all agree

43:03

that there's a problem , but what is the source of it

43:06

? Yeah

43:08

, I think , just on the gold standard point , there's

43:12

a reason that countries left the gold

43:14

standard during the Great Depression is because it

43:16

was decimating their economies . It

43:19

didn't allow for the freedom of

43:22

things like exchange rate policy

43:24

. That would mean that you didn't

43:26

have to have half-year country unemployed

43:28

in order to meet your foreign exchange

43:30

requirements . The

43:33

gold standard failed . It's a failure

43:35

, and for very

43:38

good historical reasons . I

43:40

would just encourage anybody who thinks that the

43:42

gold standard is a savior to

43:44

look into that .

43:45

Yeah , I

43:48

believe the bullshit that is generally

43:51

implied

43:53

by people like Bellagie and these other venture

43:56

capitalists

43:59

who are very popular in the crypto world that espouse

44:01

this idea quite often . Accelerationism

44:09

has a more positive is the right view , but

44:12

a more accepting view of technological

44:14

innovation or progress

44:16

. But of course , right

44:19

now there has been other

44:22

trends within the left , as you have

44:24

people who call themselves

44:26

or who are interested in degrowth . I

44:30

don't know too much about it , but when I understand

44:32

they're interested in slowing down

44:35

everything generally as a way to

44:37

deal with the climate crisis , to stop

44:39

that we don't necessarily

44:41

need technological , new technological

44:44

innovations to solve our problems , but that we can just slow down

44:46

growth to decrease our output

44:49

of greenhouse gases . Then

44:51

you also have people who call themselves

44:53

Neo-Luddites . They

44:56

would point to the tradition of

44:58

the Luddites in the UK in which

45:00

a bunch of workers had destroyed

45:02

I think they had just bought

45:04

new machines for these people who were

45:06

making clothing . The

45:09

new machines would then cut half of their

45:11

workforce , so they destroyed the

45:13

machines and started this movement

45:15

for a short while . I'm

45:17

curious if you have any

45:20

thoughts on these movements

45:22

and whether or not they are , are

45:25

they not as against

45:28

their anti-accelerationism

45:30

or something or whatever you want to call it , as

45:33

maybe they seem , I don't know .

45:36

I think they're not necessarily as opposed as

45:38

it might seem . The

45:41

original Luddites were

45:43

just simply workers fighting for

45:45

their livelihoods against

45:48

technology as

45:51

the most obvious figure

45:53

of capitalist relations . It

45:56

wasn't necessarily a fight against technology , it

45:58

was a fight against the capitalist who were installing

46:01

these technologies . I

46:03

think the Neo-Luddite approach

46:06

, at least the ones that take

46:09

that facet

46:11

of worker struggle as

46:13

central I have absolutely

46:15

no problem with it . I do

46:17

have a problem sometimes in Neo-Luddites can tip over

46:20

into being just blanket criticism

46:22

of any technology whatsoever . I don't

46:24

think that's right , but I think there

46:26

is a lot of value in the

46:28

ideas . What's

46:31

interesting is actually , I think , suitably

46:33

interpreted . I find myself in agreement with almost

46:35

all of it . That

46:39

might sound strange , but here's the sort of thing you

46:41

have . On one hand , the debate seems to be between

46:43

de-growthers arguing okay , yes

46:45

, well

46:48

, let's put it in this crudest form we need to stop

46:51

economic growth . Then you have

46:53

, on the other hand , eco-modernists who say well

46:55

, technology will solve all the

46:57

problems . We can solve all the climate issues , we

46:59

can do carbon capture , we can do geo-engineering

47:02

, we can do anything . We don't need to change

47:04

our livelihoods whatsoever , we can just keep

47:06

going . I

47:09

think partly this debate between the

47:11

two gets lost in the fact

47:13

that neither is really talking about what

47:15

timescale they're talking about , because

47:18

I think eco-modernism rightly points

47:20

to the fact that the

47:24

planetary limits that we have right now

47:26

for resource use or whatever

47:28

the case may be , the planetary limits are

47:30

not fixed , that they're actually variable

47:32

. They're based upon , at

47:35

least in part , how efficiently we use technologies

47:37

and where are we getting our energy from , and these

47:39

sorts of things . I think , given

47:42

the potential for technology to

47:44

change those planetary limits

47:46

at a certain point in time , in

47:48

some certain future who

47:51

knows how long I think the

47:53

eco-modernist argument that we don't need to change our livelihoods

47:55

could be right . It's

47:58

not right . It's not correct at the moment

48:01

, though this is where sort of degrowth comes

48:03

in and says well , we do need to actually change a lot of

48:05

our habits . We need to think about

48:07

how much meat are we eating , how

48:10

many cars are we driving , these sorts of things . I

48:12

think they're absolutely right on all of those questions Fundamental

48:16

to any question of the future as well . Is

48:18

the future livable ? I think climate

48:20

change is like the foundational question

48:23

upon which any other sort of political

48:25

question has to be set

48:27

upon . I think degrowth

48:30

is right in a lot of ways . I think , crucially , they're

48:33

right in the sense of economic

48:35

growth , particularly as measured by GDP

48:38

, is a terrible metric for progress . They

48:42

talk about ending economic growth and

48:44

I think , if you interpret that to mean let's

48:47

not focus on GDP growth , I think they're

48:49

absolutely right . Let's focus on some other measure

48:51

of growth , which is why

48:53

I'm not a big fan of the term degrowth , because I think

48:55

they do want growth . They just want

48:57

growth in a different sense . Degrowth

49:00

is not necessarily the best way

49:02

to phrase that . The other thing

49:04

I would say is that I think in the most

49:07

sensible , sophisticated

49:10

versions of degrowth , you also

49:12

get a sense that high

49:14

technology can be used

49:16

to solve the problems that we face . That

49:19

is not just a matter of a blanket rejection

49:21

of technology , but in fact of using technologies

49:24

in the most effective and

49:27

collectively

49:29

determined ways . The

49:31

big problem is that we have technologies

49:34

that are deployed by

49:37

capitalist for capitalist purposes , without

49:40

any sense of any sort of climate

49:42

externalities or anything like that , and

49:46

if we have collective determination over the development

49:48

and use and deployment of technologies

49:50

, suddenly I think the question becomes much more interesting

49:53

. I think there's another

49:55

divide here . You get between eco-modernists

49:59

who will argue that we need big , high technology

50:01

all the time , and

50:04

then the other of others who will argue , well , we don't want any

50:06

technology . Technology is not the answer

50:08

. I think actually , the answer is really

50:11

we need sometimes small

50:13

scale technology , but

50:15

it can be really high tech , but

50:17

it could be local . It could be small scale

50:20

solar panels on roofs versus a

50:22

massive single solar power

50:24

generating plant . They're

50:27

both high technologies , but

50:29

eco-modernists would want the big solar plant

50:32

rather than distributed

50:34

solar panels on

50:36

people's roofs . So

50:39

I think degrowth at its best will

50:41

say , yes , we need to make use of technologies , but

50:43

we need to use it consciously and we need

50:45

to think about

50:48

the climate costs . They're involved in these sorts of things

50:50

as well . We can't just simply say , yes , electric

50:52

cars for everybody , without thinking about lithium

50:54

, for instance , and the ways in which lithium

50:57

extraction is devastating to communities

50:59

and climates around the world . So

51:02

, yes , I have a lot I enjoy in

51:04

degrowth , even if I think the term itself

51:08

leads people astray .

51:10

Yeah , I think for a lot of

51:12

people it's a

51:15

negative reaction because

51:17

of the term degrowth , because it seems like except

51:20

for people describe it as almost

51:23

implying an austerity that it

51:25

could fit quite well within a

51:27

neoliberal framework of austerity because

51:29

we're degrossing , we're

51:31

decreasing your living conditions , because

51:33

, well , we have to fix the climate , which

51:38

is not a positive political vision

51:40

.

51:40

I guess , yeah

51:42

, and particularly when significant parts

51:45

of the world haven't seen wage growth and have

51:47

seen austerity for the past 10

51:49

, almost 15 years now To

51:52

try and sell people a left version of austerity

51:55

, I think is incredibly

51:58

difficult and I think is

52:01

also far too pessimistic about what's possible

52:03

.

52:05

Maybe they just need to change it to just use

52:07

the whole meta thing , meta growth just

52:09

remove the

52:11

. D maybe , and then everyone will be like , okay , let's

52:14

do that now . A

52:16

rethinking of growth . Okay

52:20

, yeah , I think that's really . I just really

52:22

. I think in my ideal

52:24

world it would be to where the left has

52:27

much more organizational

52:29

capacity and governance within

52:31

itself to be able to have these

52:34

types of conversations or debates

52:36

or discussion , to be able to synthesize

52:40

more of these various ideas

52:43

coming from different places that aren't

52:45

necessarily as opposed

52:47

as they like seem to be

52:49

. I think people just have a tendency to be like there's

52:52

this thing , there's that thing , there's that thing and they're all

52:54

contradictory to one another

52:56

and they're not going . They're all fights

52:58

amongst themselves to have a bigger

53:00

share of the pie or whatever else , rather

53:02

than kind of like I

53:05

don't know if it's necessarily communization , but

53:07

just coming together to a more

53:10

coherent framework

53:12

that no single movement or single

53:16

framework can possibly encompass everything .

53:18

Yeah , yeah , I think

53:21

the incentive structures of , well

53:23

, particularly social media , but also academia

53:25

, sort of militate against this , though , because

53:27

you know academia requires you to distinguish

53:29

yourself from others , and social media

53:32

, you know engagement , is dependent

53:34

upon being provocative and controversial and like

53:36

antagonistic . What

53:39

I do find is that , you know , I think

53:41

the sort of slow decline

53:43

of Twitter is going to foster this more . But

53:45

the movement towards more

53:47

small scale sort

53:49

of private internet groups you

53:52

know the Discord , I think , is a pretty good example

53:55

you know there's a lot more smaller

53:57

sort of groups on Discord , whereas

53:59

not just everybody in the world goes

54:01

on to one single social media platform

54:03

. And then you know the complete loss

54:05

of context that happens with that

54:07

sort of thing . Yeah

54:10

, I think smaller scale internet communities

54:12

are , you

54:15

do get these sort of productive discussions , at

54:17

least in my experience .

54:19

Yeah , definitely . I find that also

54:21

like I don't know people I

54:24

mean one they use the internet differently

54:26

in different contexts . I think , also like

54:29

my experience with using the internet I mean just

54:31

like within the left , of course is that you

54:33

have like any time I would bring up , for

54:35

example , cryptocurrency , I

54:37

would get like an instant kind of barrage of like

54:39

you're a scammer , you're what , are

54:42

you trying to sell us ? And I'm

54:44

like I'm just trying to talk , have like a

54:46

normal conversation about it . Why can't we

54:48

have that ? But it gets shut down like quite fast and we can't

54:50

like there's no like . So I had

54:53

to create my own little pocket

54:55

of the internet to build a community

54:57

just to talk about like this intersection of weird things

54:59

, because neither side like

55:02

necessarily wants to talk about the other one . I

55:05

do find it like quite quite like

55:07

it's been very productive in that way , to like have

55:09

that safe space rather than trying to force

55:12

everything into the void , I guess .

55:15

Yeah , I think the

55:17

desire to be popular and

55:19

get like massive engagement on social media

55:22

is such a fool's game in the end .

55:24

Yeah , so

55:27

your new book maybe we can talk

55:29

about that . It's called After Work A

55:31

History of the Home and the Fight for Free Time

55:33

. It's coming out with Verso . Do you

55:35

want to tell us a bit about it and how it , how

55:38

it relates to this , maybe this conversation

55:40

that we're having ?

55:42

Yeah , so it's out soon . I wrote

55:44

it with my wife , helen Hester . We

55:47

started it well , I should say Helen started

55:49

it back in 2015

55:51

or 2016 . She gave

55:53

a talk on what ended up being sort of the basic

55:56

foundation of the book . And

55:58

the core sort of problem of the book is to say , well

56:00

, we had a lot of post-work

56:02

thinking recently , thinking about

56:05

how we can use technology to increase

56:07

free time and liberate people from judgeery

56:09

and from work . But

56:11

a lot of that thinking , if not

56:14

almost all of it , has

56:16

been focused on wage

56:19

work , and particularly wage work which is done by men

56:21

. So we'll talk about automating warehouses

56:24

and offices and

56:26

factories and truck

56:29

driving and things like this , but we'll

56:31

never talk about nurseries or

56:34

care homes or hospitals in

56:36

the same sort of way . So

56:39

you've got this real

56:41

void in the discussion around . Post-work

56:43

is focused on one type of work

56:45

but completely neglects this other type

56:48

of work . You get feminists

56:50

which then point that out . They say , well , you haven't

56:52

talked about this work . But almost

56:54

always feminists will say , actually

56:57

, post-work ideas can't really be applied to

57:00

care work , to reproductive labor . So

57:04

do we want robots actually looking after our children ? Most

57:07

people don't , the vast majority don't . So

57:11

, basically , just the discussion

57:13

ends there . You've got post-work on one hand and

57:16

you've got reproductive labor on the other hand , and

57:18

they don't seem to combine in any easy way . And

57:20

the book is to say well , they can be combined

57:22

and they need to be combined , but

57:26

you have to modify both of them in different ways in

57:28

order to get them to work together . And

57:31

so that's what we try and do . We try and set out how

57:34

post-work ideas that

57:36

are fighting for more free time , how

57:39

can that be applied to care

57:41

work and reproductive labor in general ?

57:45

That's interesting . So how do we combine

57:47

? Are we ?

57:48

should we give our babies to the robots , or

57:51

Well

57:53

, there's , I mean there's one way in which we already

57:56

do give our babies to robots , which is television

57:58

. You , know we plop our children in front of TV so

58:01

we can do the laundry or make dinner

58:03

and stuff like that . So

58:06

, yeah , we do automate childcare already , and I think that's

58:08

an underappreciated point is that it

58:10

is Hedda has already been automated in

58:13

many , many ways . I

58:16

mean one

58:18

of the challenges that we come up with in

58:20

the book . Building on this

58:23

scholar , ruth Schwartz

58:25

Cohen , so she wrote a book

58:27

back in I think it was 1982

58:30

, if I remember correctly , called

58:32

More Work for Mother , and it basically looked

58:34

at the

58:36

history of changes of technology within the

58:38

home from like the 1870s

58:40

to the 1970s

58:43

, and it was , in her own words , an

58:45

industrial revolution of the home , you know , a

58:47

massive change , the introduction of washing

58:50

machines and dishwashers , and

58:54

running water , plumbing and

58:56

electricity all these things . The

58:58

home of the 1870s was massively different

59:00

from the home of 1940s , 1950s

59:04

, hugely different . The

59:06

surprising thing that she found , though , was that , when

59:09

she looked at how much work

59:11

people were doing in the home in the 1870s

59:13

versus the 1970s , it

59:16

hadn't really changed , if

59:18

anything . For some people , it was actually increasing

59:21

over that time period , which sounds

59:23

really bizarre , because you would think that dishwashers

59:25

are gonna save you time , washing machines are gonna save you

59:27

time , but for some reason they

59:29

didn't , and the book is a lot

59:31

of discussion about . Well , why was this the case ? And

59:34

so our book builds a lot on that why

59:37

wasn't this the case ? One of the key

59:39

answers has to do with I won't try

59:41

and give away our whole book right now but one

59:44

of the key reasons why was the ratcheting

59:46

up of standards around things like

59:48

cleanliness and hygiene . So

59:52

, yes , you

59:54

could wash your clothes

59:56

much quicker and much easier

59:58

with a washing machine , but now

1:00:01

you're expected to do it every few days rather

1:00:03

than once a month , which might've

1:00:05

happened beforehand . In the

1:00:07

words of one scholar on this , laundrie

1:00:10

went from being a weekly nightmare to

1:00:13

an endless drudgery . It was just

1:00:15

always there . So

1:00:17

this ratcheting up of standards meant that , put

1:00:21

it in economic terms , productivity was

1:00:23

increased , but output also increased . So

1:00:25

we're doing more and more Laundrie , and

1:00:28

you find this everywhere . But then

1:00:30

in the book we also talk about the

1:00:32

sort of the forcing of all this work onto individual

1:00:35

homes and individual families , the

1:00:38

massive duplication of effort

1:00:40

that goes on every single night in people's

1:00:42

homes , the cooking of meals

1:00:44

and things like that All

1:00:46

these things which could be done in much more time

1:00:49

, effective and resource effective ways that

1:00:52

are just completely gone because we have we've

1:00:55

got a society which demands the single family

1:00:57

, single family home as

1:01:00

its model . So

1:01:02

yeah , and then we talk about what might

1:01:04

the alternative be , and Vienna is

1:01:06

a good inspiration for a lot of this stuff . The

1:01:09

sort of model of social housing they have there offers

1:01:12

a lot of examples . There's

1:01:15

all sorts of ways in which we can try and reduce

1:01:18

the work of reproductive labor without reducing

1:01:20

the care and without just simply

1:01:22

automating it to robots .

1:01:25

So then I imagine part of

1:01:27

it is just like kind of like the

1:01:30

privatization of care . Could

1:01:33

I say that Like that people are expected

1:01:36

now to whereas

1:01:38

maybe in the past , like you

1:01:40

would have children , like maybe in your village

1:01:42

or your tribe or whatever , and every

1:01:45

you know they have the what is the phrase ? Like

1:01:47

it takes a village to raise a child or something like that

1:01:49

. That was something embodied

1:01:51

more in like earlier

1:01:53

human civilizations , whereas today it's expected

1:01:55

, like you , almost you

1:01:58

personalize your child or

1:02:00

like you know you have like a privatized ownership

1:02:02

of your child and how you you know what

1:02:04

you input into them and what you get out , and

1:02:06

you're expected to give them the best

1:02:08

of everything in such and such way . And you

1:02:10

can only do that by you yourself

1:02:13

, kind of providing

1:02:15

everything for them , rather than kind of having

1:02:17

a more I don't know socialized form

1:02:19

of taking care of children .

1:02:23

Yeah , yeah , exactly . And I think ownership is

1:02:25

exactly the

1:02:27

right framework for what's going on right now , like

1:02:29

there's so much implied

1:02:32

and often explicitly . Actually this

1:02:34

the idea that the parental child relationship

1:02:37

is like a relationship of ownership and

1:02:39

, in fact , owning an asset of human

1:02:41

capital is effectively what the parental

1:02:44

relationship has become , and

1:02:46

then we'll follow from that as well . You have to invest in that

1:02:48

asset and you have to , you know , put time and money into

1:02:50

your little bundle of human capital

1:02:52

, and that's the way

1:02:55

childcare is seen so often nowadays . Rarely

1:02:58

explicitly will parents say this , but

1:03:00

they do act that way , and if you

1:03:02

go to policy people , they do talk

1:03:04

literally about children being human capital

1:03:07

and we need to invest in them to

1:03:09

get a good return on investment . It's

1:03:12

just the way these things are seen . Yeah

1:03:15

, it's a quite

1:03:18

mutated form of childcare

1:03:20

, I think , and parental child relationships

1:03:23

nowadays .

1:03:24

Right , yeah , I think there the

1:03:27

lack of realization that the

1:03:29

social structures that we have today are quite new

1:03:32

and have not been like tested

1:03:34

long-term , I guess , and the expectations

1:03:37

of them are quite strange actually

1:03:39

in human history . Yeah

1:03:43

, but I hate this term , human capital

1:03:45

. I feel like it drives me nuts

1:03:47

. I used to a company I used to work

1:03:49

for had an entire department called human capital

1:03:51

and I don't

1:03:54

know , every time I heard it I

1:03:56

was going insane . I couldn't believe people were just

1:03:58

like you know , and that was supposed

1:04:00

to be like the surface

1:04:02

level , kind of like I don't know , the

1:04:05

more happy department . It's human

1:04:07

capital . It drives me

1:04:09

nuts . But yeah , it's true . I mean

1:04:11

we are already treated as capital or as

1:04:14

being part of the process of capital in many

1:04:16

ways . As it exists Now . It's just kind

1:04:18

of like creeping more and more into like

1:04:20

as workers we are , and it's creeping more and more into

1:04:22

everything else . And in a world

1:04:24

where if you have decreasing , maybe

1:04:26

, social welfare benefits , then it's like you

1:04:29

better hope that you're . And , yeah , if

1:04:31

you don't have the money yourself , then better hope that your

1:04:33

child will , you know , help

1:04:36

you survive through retirement .

1:04:39

Yeah , yeah , exactly .

1:04:43

I did this , I imagined like this must have come

1:04:45

out of like your own experience of having

1:04:47

a family . Like , yeah

1:04:49

, I don't have one so .

1:04:52

I can only observe yeah , yeah , I

1:04:54

mean , yeah , so Helen and I have three children now , but

1:04:56

when we started writing the book , we didn't have any children

1:04:58

.

1:05:00

Did you have ? Were your kids like to help

1:05:02

you write the book ?

1:05:02

Yeah , Definitely

1:05:05

didn't help , but yeah

1:05:08

, we were . I was looking back

1:05:10

at the contract , the initial contract we signed for

1:05:12

the book and it was supposed to be done before

1:05:15

our first child was born . That was the idea . It's

1:05:17

like we would get the book out before we had children

1:05:19

. That didn't happen , and then

1:05:21

, three children later , we finally finished it . Many

1:05:25

, many , many sleepless nights later . But

1:05:28

yeah , I mean , they've been , you know , instructive in their own

1:05:31

ways about the

1:05:33

burdens of childcare but also the massive joys involved

1:05:35

and even the ways in which the apparent burdens

1:05:38

of childcare can become their own source of joys

1:05:40

in completely bizarre ways

1:05:42

that you might not expect . But

1:05:45

yeah , I think it's given us a very nice

1:05:47

perspective on a lot of these issues .

1:05:50

Yeah , I imagine it must have shifted

1:05:52

some things by

1:05:54

having that experience .

1:05:57

Yeah , yeah .

1:05:58

Another kind of aspect about like

1:06:01

when I read the title of your book that I don't know if

1:06:03

you had commentary

1:06:05

on , but one of the things that I think a

1:06:07

lot of people notice is that there has been this creeping

1:06:09

and accepting that more

1:06:12

and more of our time should be doing

1:06:15

things that make us money . That

1:06:17

, like you know , if you look like you

1:06:19

go to any like kind of like what

1:06:21

do you call it ? Like a hustle culture type of video , it's

1:06:23

like you gotta have your job and you gotta have

1:06:25

a hobby that makes you money in order to like really

1:06:28

make it in life . I imagine this

1:06:31

has to be like . I

1:06:33

mean , this is just like a very bizarre thing that people have kind of

1:06:35

just like accepted as being reality , as being

1:06:37

like an okay thing that everybody

1:06:39

needs to do .

1:06:42

I think a hustle culture is like ideology

1:06:44

in its purest modern form , cause

1:06:47

I think you know what it's

1:06:49

effectively doing is it's saying to people who

1:06:52

are in positions of like , struggling to make

1:06:54

money and struggling to make ends meet . Typically

1:06:56

they're saying to them that

1:06:58

you just need to work harder in order to be

1:07:00

able to make ends meet . It's explaining

1:07:02

their situation to them . You know , you haven't worked hard

1:07:05

enough . It's sort

1:07:07

of raising them up but above others , is saying well , you

1:07:09

work hard and

1:07:12

you'll be able to be a success , and everybody else

1:07:14

is lazy compared to you . So

1:07:16

this is sort of like this hierarchy

1:07:19

that emerges within it , and

1:07:21

then it justifies the sort

1:07:23

of endless slog that is necessary in order

1:07:25

to work in capitalism

1:07:27

today . So it's

1:07:29

ideology in its purest form . It just

1:07:31

justifies the existing state of affairs

1:07:33

.

1:07:35

Yeah , yeah , it reminds

1:07:37

me of like , I

1:07:39

think Gramsci talking about hegemony

1:07:41

and like imposing kind of the cultural

1:07:44

standards of the

1:07:46

elites onto like

1:07:48

down in order to like have

1:07:50

people comply or think or normalize

1:07:53

kind of like the social

1:07:56

structures of the elite in in some

1:07:58

way as being like the ideal way

1:08:00

of living or of being , to

1:08:03

understand correctly .

1:08:04

Yeah , it's , it's . It's the reality of so many

1:08:06

people's lives . You know your primary

1:08:08

job doesn't make enough money . You need to go

1:08:11

and drive a taxi on the weekends . You need to be

1:08:13

a delivery driver . You need to do all these other things

1:08:15

in order to make ends meet . Yeah

1:08:18

, it's the reality .

1:08:20

Yeah , but as like . As far as like , its

1:08:22

relation to accelerationism is the idea

1:08:24

that there has been this kind of

1:08:26

like you like

1:08:28

increased use of technology . In certain ways , and

1:08:30

many ways , it has not necessarily

1:08:33

produced the . The

1:08:35

way that technology has been introduced and used

1:08:37

in the privatized home has not induced

1:08:40

the type of gains that you would expect

1:08:42

but that you know . Basically

1:08:44

, we can live a life in which we

1:08:47

do care for our children

1:08:49

in the ways that we want to , in

1:08:51

the ways that are necessary for a human to

1:08:53

become an adult , while

1:08:56

still being able to reduce the

1:08:58

amount of drudgery that we

1:09:00

are succumbed to , I guess .

1:09:03

Yeah , I think it is possible , but

1:09:05

I think probably

1:09:08

not possible under capitalism . I

1:09:10

think one of the interesting things we

1:09:12

come across in the book is long histories of

1:09:15

, you

1:09:18

know more sort of communal

1:09:20

groups of people , thinking

1:09:23

of , for instance , like the Quakers in America

1:09:25

, these small communities who end

1:09:28

up living together , and the

1:09:30

massive inventiveness that people

1:09:32

have towards

1:09:34

the domestic sphere when , when they're given the opportunity to . You

1:09:38

know numerous technologies developed by

1:09:40

these communities to try and make the domestic

1:09:42

drudgery much , much easier and

1:09:45

to alleviate a lot of that burden . But

1:09:48

we don't have , for the vast

1:09:51

majority of us , we don't have the time or

1:09:53

the resources to be able to actually

1:09:55

do or think about these things . So

1:09:59

, you know , part of the alternative

1:10:01

is to give people those technologies , to give people the

1:10:03

ability and the capacity , in the necessary

1:10:07

environment and resources , to be able to develop

1:10:11

their own ways of alleviating burdens . Yeah

1:10:15

, there's those histories littered with

1:10:17

these examples , but they're

1:10:20

driven by people on the ground users

1:10:22

, workers , you know , individuals

1:10:25

rather than by sort of top

1:10:27

down corporations trying to sell you a product .

1:10:29

Yeah , fair Is there

1:10:31

any last things you would like

1:10:33

to mention before we close it off ?

1:10:39

No , I think that's about it . I think I

1:10:41

mean I will say I think sort of situating after

1:10:43

work within the longer

1:10:45

sort of accelerationist history . I think you

1:10:48

know it's . It's it's again focused on this idea of freedom , and free time is fundamental

1:10:50

, like foundation for freedom . You know , freedom isn't

1:10:52

found when you've got a boss hovering over

1:10:54

your shoulder telling you what to do or you know , today

1:10:56

you've got an app telling you when you need to

1:10:58

be at some place . That's

1:11:02

not freedom . You know freedom fundamentally comes from outside

1:11:04

of work , it comes from free time , and

1:11:09

so the book is a way of , you know , trying to argue

1:11:11

and think about ways in which we can expand freedom

1:11:13

, not just through wage work , but also through this unwaged reproductive

1:11:16

labor .

1:11:21

Nice , yeah , freedom comes from free time

1:11:23

. I think that's a nice succinct yeah

1:11:28

phrase or argument to put forth towards your hustle culture

1:11:30

, friends or something , I don't know .

1:11:33

Yeah , exactly .

1:11:35

All right , well , thanks so much , nick . Really great to be

1:11:37

able to talk to you . Is

1:11:40

there anything you'd like to leave with the

1:11:42

audience , like any ? Any plugs ? Where can people find

1:11:45

the book ? Where they can find you ?

1:11:47

You can find the book wherever you want . It's

1:11:50

in all the usual spots . I'm

1:11:53

sure it'll be pirated soon as well , so I'm

1:11:55

sure you can get it for free if you need to

1:11:57

as well . Yeah , thank you very much for

1:11:59

having me on the podcast .

1:12:01

Of course , yeah , thanks so much .