Civil society rests on the equilibrium created by labor rights, property rights, and democratic rights. The automation job apocalypse threatens the labor rights pillar. I think we can replace it.
It seems to me that you are advocating for more capitalism as the solution to late-stage capitalism.
I think you're 100% right about the collapse of the current social contract for the exact reasons you describe. I too believe that we're rushing towards a cyberpunk dystopia, exactly as you describe.
But after reading through this post and watching a couple of your videos on the same topic, it seems to me that you're centering your solution on property rights. Property is really just capital. And what I sense is the weakness in the solutions you are proposing is the question of how somebody _gets_ capital before they have any capital. Because employment is theoretically the mechanism by which people without capital -- i.e. people who are just entering working age -- can begin to obtain it and therefore participate in capitalism.
The more I re-read this post, the more confused I get. In the problem analysis section, you recognize that the means of production is all sliding towards to corporations, which will cause a cyberpunk dystopia, but later in your solution section, you say "We can keep track of property rights without the government. We can vote nationally (or globally) without the government." and "I’ve been joking about 'seizing the means of production and putting it on a blockchain.'" So you are implying here that it's actually the government who has all the means of production and that we can seize that and replace the government with the blockchain.
So I think you've perfectly described the problem, but I don't see how the solution addresses the problem at all. I have nothing against blockchain technology. But it seems to me that your solution will really just pour gas on the fire. The government places a check on corporate power and brings _some_ balance to capitalism. For example, a federal minimum wage keeps wages from rushing towards $0 when unemployment is high. The FTC and DOJ work together to ensure competition remains in the market place by breaking up monopolies. These are social policies rather than property rules. It would be extremely difficult to enforce in a blockchain world, because the corps could just migrate all their capital to whichever blockchain ecosystem is most favorable.
I think we need to look more deeply and radically for a solution than what you've proposed.
If all the research you're doing is reading Substack, of course you're missing the biggest picture. This is a tiny fraction of the body of research. In point of fact, economists generally agree that broadening participation via property is the right direction. I've got all the backing research available here: https://daveshap.github.io/PostLaborEconomics/
I’m ready! Thanks for another provocative and profound piece.
“Solarpunk” is the antithesis of cyberpunk. Rather than our humanity and rights being eroded by techno-feudalism and corporatism, we the People win. It is characterized by shared abundance, high levels of liberty, and low corruption. Perhaps, most importantly, solarpunk implies sustainability across many dimensions (environmental, social, psychological).
( basically the opossite of what is happening in the US)
Shap’s view echoes Rousseau/Rawls that democracy is more than casting ballots.
6. Cross-border social contracting
Redesign obligations for global challenges—like pandemics, climate, migration, digital platforms—with international coordination and refugee protections .
7. Climate‑focused social contract
Include environmental accountability—Green New Deal models that tie social safety nets to sustainability goals .
Some have made thoughts on this, not sure how much power I would vest in councils etc, but that is ultimately a personal choice..
Anarcho-Syndicalism in a World of Plenty: A Chomskyan Vision
Noam Chomsky, a towering figure in linguistics and political thought, has long championed anarcho-syndicalism, a political philosophy advocating for a decentralized, stateless society organized around democratic, worker-controlled industries. While Chomsky's primary focus has been on critiquing existing power structures, his ideas provide a robust framework for envisioning a society of hyper-abundance and outlining a potential, albeit challenging, path to its realization.
At the heart of Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalist vision is the principle of worker self-management. In a departure from both state socialism and corporate capitalism, industries would be administered by the workers themselves through federations of councils. These councils, from the local factory floor to broader industrial and community assemblies, would make decisions about production, distribution, and the nature of work itself. This model stands in stark opposition to the top-down, hierarchical control inherent in both state- and privately-owned enterprises, which Chomsky views as fundamentally illegitimate and oppressive.
The Anarcho-Syndicalist Blueprint in a Post-Scarcity Society
In a theoretical post-scarcity or hyper-abundant society, where advanced automation has rendered most forms of menial and repetitive labor obsolete, Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalist framework would not become redundant but rather find its fullest expression. The core tenets would adapt and evolve in the following ways:
* From Toil to Creative Labor: With basic needs met through automated production, the nature of "work" would be fundamentally transformed. The focus would shift from labor as a means of survival to labor as a form of creative expression and social contribution. Individuals could freely associate and engage in projects that align with their interests and talents, fostering innovation and personal fulfillment. As Chomsky has argued, automation under capitalism is often used to de-skill and control the workforce; in an anarcho-syndicalist society, it would be a tool for liberation.
* Democratic Allocation of Abundance: The challenge in a hyper-abundant world is not one of production but of distribution and the determination of societal priorities. The federated councils of workers and communities would be the mechanism for these decisions. They would democratically decide how the fruits of automated production are to be shared and what new projects and areas of research to pursue for the common good. This would prevent the concentration of immense technological power and resources in the hands of a few, a danger Chomsky frequently warns against.
* The End of the Corporation and the Withering of the State: In a society of decentralized, self-managed industries, the modern corporation—a private tyranny in Chomsky's view—would cease to exist. Its functions would be absorbed by the workers' councils. Similarly, the coercive functions of the state, which Chomsky argues largely serve to protect private power and control the populace, would become unnecessary. The administrative tasks of the state could be managed by the federated councils, realizing the anarchist goal of a society without a centralized, top-down authority.
* Education for Freedom: Education would be reoriented away from producing compliant workers for a hierarchical system and towards fostering critical thinking, creativity, and the skills necessary for meaningful participation in a self-managed society. The goal would be to empower individuals to contribute to the democratic governance of their communities and workplaces.
Bridging the Gap: The Chomskyan Path to a Liberated Future
Chomsky is not a utopian thinker who believes such a society can be willed into existence. He advocates for a gradual, strategic approach to building the foundations of an anarcho-syndicalist future within our current society. The key elements of this transition include:
* Building "Dual Power" and Alternative Institutions: This involves creating and supporting grassroots organizations that operate on anarcho-syndicalist principles, effectively building a new society within the shell of the old. This includes supporting worker cooperatives, community-controlled enterprises, and independent media. These institutions serve as practical models of self-management and challenge the dominance of existing power structures.
* Supporting Labor Movements and Direct Action: Chomsky consistently emphasizes the importance of a militant and democratic labor movement. Strikes, boycotts, and other forms of direct action are seen not just as tools for winning concessions but as crucial experiences in self-organization and solidarity that build the capacity for workers to eventually take control of production.
* Critical Engagement and Consciousness-Raising: A fundamental aspect of the struggle is intellectual. Chomsky's own work is a testament to his belief in the power of "intellectual self-defense"—the ability of ordinary people to see through propaganda and understand the true nature of power. By demystifying the operations of the state, corporations, and the media, individuals can begin to envision and demand a more just and free society.
* Pragmatic Reforms as a Stepping Stone: While his ultimate goal is revolutionary, Chomsky is not opposed to advocating for immediate, pragmatic reforms within the existing system. Strengthening unions, increasing corporate accountability, and expanding social safety nets are seen as important short-term goals that can improve people's lives and create more favorable conditions for the long-term struggle for a fundamentally different society.
In conclusion, Noam Chomsky's vision of anarcho-syndicalism offers a compelling framework for a post-scarcity society, one that leverages technological abundance not for the enrichment of a few but for the liberation and creative fulfillment of all. The path to this future, in the Chomskyan view, is not through a single, cataclysmic event but through the patient and determined work of building alternative institutions, supporting popular movements, and fostering a critical consciousness that empowers people to become the masters of their own lives and destinies.
I mean, I am glad you seem to be coming around to the meats and potatoes of it, but .. Blockchain is not a fix, they can tear it down and build another in a day. See how quickly states rights or habeas corpus is ignored when those who wield power are of the mood? If what gives you agency and access can just be taken away then it is just an illusion of inclusion.
What you would need is to not have to beg or rely on "the good graces" of the haves, because any imbalance in accumulation will cause an even faster growth of inequality and thereby inequity due to abuse.
Post scarcity has no need of capitalism, right? So enforce equality with continuous redistribution via progressive taxation that can go above 100 when needed. People can choose to pool their resources and go into syndicates if they wish, but if we want a future where people are not murderously selfish, then we need to remove the advantages of taking that approach to each other.
One of my thoughts, not entirely distilled, is of control. The Founder of Figure says there are plans to lease their units out, which gave me this idea. He threw out a number of $300 a month. As much as the government screws things up, we would need legislation to pull this off. I realize it would be heavily resisted by those who own capital.
The idea is to prevent or severely limit ownership or direct leasing of any robotic labor, by the corporation. Not saying they can't use it, but limit the direct control of it. If I could lease the robots and then contract their labor to a corporation that needs it, I could lease or buy several units and have multiple income streams, based on the number I had in the pool. Of course, limiting the number to someone who can afford many and allocating a minimum that everyone would have would also be necessary.
As I said, it's not thoroughly thought through, but it could be a starting point for people to continue to "own" the labor.
Another solution is tactical irrelevance: creating your own alternate structures that are contextually irrelevant to the dominant paradigm. Solutions within or similar to the dominant paradigm are likely to be warped by the deep probability well of the dominant paradigm and coopted towards its goals.
Yeah blockchain sounds good though what they're ultimately capable of is still a mystery. Not following it at the moment. What you're suggesting seems like it's similar to what you've been proposing but now it's on blockchain or the cloud. They can exercise their right to take part in a strike to stop/boycott production/compute of certain companies by sacrificing some of our compute/production quota. We can allocate compute/production power to companies that align with our values. Or maybe universally at first and then we have our own blacklisted companies. We can also shutdown the government and the police/military using similar mechanisms. I will also add that governing such a complex system would require neural implants and access to ASI as a basic right as it is a necessity for anyone taking part in governing and auditing such complex systems. The transition to such a system however would require a near miracle to happen I'm afraid.
Read “our knowledge system has collapsed “ by Ted Goia. It’s possible that the labor pillar can be replaced with a new knowledge pillar. If not, we may be in trouble
Historically any class of people that achieved abundance beyond a single generation lost it due lack of purpose or adaptation to changing conditions whether internally (lack of involvement) or externally (the abundance was attacked). Before we get to universal abundance which seems the premise of a post labor discussion, how do we create universal abundance for the post labor discussion to be relevant and expanded for the sustainability question?
You're conflating generational patterns within families with macroeconomic policies. Nations rarely, if ever, lose "generational" wealth accumulated over time, except in cases of war.
I’m new to this. Not sure I understand. Does this mean we would divide our society and infrastructure into a sort of « grid » and then each citizen would « buy » / « own » a small part of that grid ?
How do we get this in front of the right people in government? They need to be aware of what is coming and options in dealing with the impending challenges. Have you spoken with economists and politicians about PLE? Perhaps not waiting until unemployment is at the 10-14% threshold for congress to action would be pragmatic?
I have a global audience. The right people are watching. We still need to build the movement. The big thing will be the book. A good solid book is a powerful coordinating mechanism.
Yes, a book. A big book with lots of TLDR, appendices, footnotes. etc. Peer reviewed and backed with opinions from noted economists, futurists, etc. And then a book to explain the Book. Hurry Sundown (you're gonna need a team)
It seems to me that you are advocating for more capitalism as the solution to late-stage capitalism.
I think you're 100% right about the collapse of the current social contract for the exact reasons you describe. I too believe that we're rushing towards a cyberpunk dystopia, exactly as you describe.
But after reading through this post and watching a couple of your videos on the same topic, it seems to me that you're centering your solution on property rights. Property is really just capital. And what I sense is the weakness in the solutions you are proposing is the question of how somebody _gets_ capital before they have any capital. Because employment is theoretically the mechanism by which people without capital -- i.e. people who are just entering working age -- can begin to obtain it and therefore participate in capitalism.
The more I re-read this post, the more confused I get. In the problem analysis section, you recognize that the means of production is all sliding towards to corporations, which will cause a cyberpunk dystopia, but later in your solution section, you say "We can keep track of property rights without the government. We can vote nationally (or globally) without the government." and "I’ve been joking about 'seizing the means of production and putting it on a blockchain.'" So you are implying here that it's actually the government who has all the means of production and that we can seize that and replace the government with the blockchain.
So I think you've perfectly described the problem, but I don't see how the solution addresses the problem at all. I have nothing against blockchain technology. But it seems to me that your solution will really just pour gas on the fire. The government places a check on corporate power and brings _some_ balance to capitalism. For example, a federal minimum wage keeps wages from rushing towards $0 when unemployment is high. The FTC and DOJ work together to ensure competition remains in the market place by breaking up monopolies. These are social policies rather than property rules. It would be extremely difficult to enforce in a blockchain world, because the corps could just migrate all their capital to whichever blockchain ecosystem is most favorable.
I think we need to look more deeply and radically for a solution than what you've proposed.
If all the research you're doing is reading Substack, of course you're missing the biggest picture. This is a tiny fraction of the body of research. In point of fact, economists generally agree that broadening participation via property is the right direction. I've got all the backing research available here: https://daveshap.github.io/PostLaborEconomics/
I’m ready! Thanks for another provocative and profound piece.
“Solarpunk” is the antithesis of cyberpunk. Rather than our humanity and rights being eroded by techno-feudalism and corporatism, we the People win. It is characterized by shared abundance, high levels of liberty, and low corruption. Perhaps, most importantly, solarpunk implies sustainability across many dimensions (environmental, social, psychological).
I concur
Real-world solutions: concrete ideas
1. Universal Basic Income (UBI) or Negative Income Tax
Supports workers displaced by AI, maintains purchasing power, and offers citizens leverage as consumers and participants in the contract .
2. Wealth/robot taxes & public AI ownership
Tax automated systems or AI infrastructure and redirect the revenue to public goods—investing in education, healthcare, green transformation.
3. Strengthen labor representation
Modernize unions and worker councils (e.g. EU's Worker Participation Directive), ensuring AI and gig work aren't left out.
4. Participatory democracy
Implement citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting (à la Green Economy Coalition), giving people a real voice in policy .
5. Protect democratic integrity
Reinforce election quality, free media, anti-corruption frameworks.
( basically the opossite of what is happening in the US)
Shap’s view echoes Rousseau/Rawls that democracy is more than casting ballots.
6. Cross-border social contracting
Redesign obligations for global challenges—like pandemics, climate, migration, digital platforms—with international coordination and refugee protections .
7. Climate‑focused social contract
Include environmental accountability—Green New Deal models that tie social safety nets to sustainability goals .
Gracias
Some have made thoughts on this, not sure how much power I would vest in councils etc, but that is ultimately a personal choice..
Anarcho-Syndicalism in a World of Plenty: A Chomskyan Vision
Noam Chomsky, a towering figure in linguistics and political thought, has long championed anarcho-syndicalism, a political philosophy advocating for a decentralized, stateless society organized around democratic, worker-controlled industries. While Chomsky's primary focus has been on critiquing existing power structures, his ideas provide a robust framework for envisioning a society of hyper-abundance and outlining a potential, albeit challenging, path to its realization.
At the heart of Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalist vision is the principle of worker self-management. In a departure from both state socialism and corporate capitalism, industries would be administered by the workers themselves through federations of councils. These councils, from the local factory floor to broader industrial and community assemblies, would make decisions about production, distribution, and the nature of work itself. This model stands in stark opposition to the top-down, hierarchical control inherent in both state- and privately-owned enterprises, which Chomsky views as fundamentally illegitimate and oppressive.
The Anarcho-Syndicalist Blueprint in a Post-Scarcity Society
In a theoretical post-scarcity or hyper-abundant society, where advanced automation has rendered most forms of menial and repetitive labor obsolete, Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalist framework would not become redundant but rather find its fullest expression. The core tenets would adapt and evolve in the following ways:
* From Toil to Creative Labor: With basic needs met through automated production, the nature of "work" would be fundamentally transformed. The focus would shift from labor as a means of survival to labor as a form of creative expression and social contribution. Individuals could freely associate and engage in projects that align with their interests and talents, fostering innovation and personal fulfillment. As Chomsky has argued, automation under capitalism is often used to de-skill and control the workforce; in an anarcho-syndicalist society, it would be a tool for liberation.
* Democratic Allocation of Abundance: The challenge in a hyper-abundant world is not one of production but of distribution and the determination of societal priorities. The federated councils of workers and communities would be the mechanism for these decisions. They would democratically decide how the fruits of automated production are to be shared and what new projects and areas of research to pursue for the common good. This would prevent the concentration of immense technological power and resources in the hands of a few, a danger Chomsky frequently warns against.
* The End of the Corporation and the Withering of the State: In a society of decentralized, self-managed industries, the modern corporation—a private tyranny in Chomsky's view—would cease to exist. Its functions would be absorbed by the workers' councils. Similarly, the coercive functions of the state, which Chomsky argues largely serve to protect private power and control the populace, would become unnecessary. The administrative tasks of the state could be managed by the federated councils, realizing the anarchist goal of a society without a centralized, top-down authority.
* Education for Freedom: Education would be reoriented away from producing compliant workers for a hierarchical system and towards fostering critical thinking, creativity, and the skills necessary for meaningful participation in a self-managed society. The goal would be to empower individuals to contribute to the democratic governance of their communities and workplaces.
Bridging the Gap: The Chomskyan Path to a Liberated Future
Chomsky is not a utopian thinker who believes such a society can be willed into existence. He advocates for a gradual, strategic approach to building the foundations of an anarcho-syndicalist future within our current society. The key elements of this transition include:
* Building "Dual Power" and Alternative Institutions: This involves creating and supporting grassroots organizations that operate on anarcho-syndicalist principles, effectively building a new society within the shell of the old. This includes supporting worker cooperatives, community-controlled enterprises, and independent media. These institutions serve as practical models of self-management and challenge the dominance of existing power structures.
* Supporting Labor Movements and Direct Action: Chomsky consistently emphasizes the importance of a militant and democratic labor movement. Strikes, boycotts, and other forms of direct action are seen not just as tools for winning concessions but as crucial experiences in self-organization and solidarity that build the capacity for workers to eventually take control of production.
* Critical Engagement and Consciousness-Raising: A fundamental aspect of the struggle is intellectual. Chomsky's own work is a testament to his belief in the power of "intellectual self-defense"—the ability of ordinary people to see through propaganda and understand the true nature of power. By demystifying the operations of the state, corporations, and the media, individuals can begin to envision and demand a more just and free society.
* Pragmatic Reforms as a Stepping Stone: While his ultimate goal is revolutionary, Chomsky is not opposed to advocating for immediate, pragmatic reforms within the existing system. Strengthening unions, increasing corporate accountability, and expanding social safety nets are seen as important short-term goals that can improve people's lives and create more favorable conditions for the long-term struggle for a fundamentally different society.
In conclusion, Noam Chomsky's vision of anarcho-syndicalism offers a compelling framework for a post-scarcity society, one that leverages technological abundance not for the enrichment of a few but for the liberation and creative fulfillment of all. The path to this future, in the Chomskyan view, is not through a single, cataclysmic event but through the patient and determined work of building alternative institutions, supporting popular movements, and fostering a critical consciousness that empowers people to become the masters of their own lives and destinies.
Long, but valuable comment. I see bits of this vision today, scattered
I mean, I am glad you seem to be coming around to the meats and potatoes of it, but .. Blockchain is not a fix, they can tear it down and build another in a day. See how quickly states rights or habeas corpus is ignored when those who wield power are of the mood? If what gives you agency and access can just be taken away then it is just an illusion of inclusion.
What you would need is to not have to beg or rely on "the good graces" of the haves, because any imbalance in accumulation will cause an even faster growth of inequality and thereby inequity due to abuse.
Post scarcity has no need of capitalism, right? So enforce equality with continuous redistribution via progressive taxation that can go above 100 when needed. People can choose to pool their resources and go into syndicates if they wish, but if we want a future where people are not murderously selfish, then we need to remove the advantages of taking that approach to each other.
One of my thoughts, not entirely distilled, is of control. The Founder of Figure says there are plans to lease their units out, which gave me this idea. He threw out a number of $300 a month. As much as the government screws things up, we would need legislation to pull this off. I realize it would be heavily resisted by those who own capital.
The idea is to prevent or severely limit ownership or direct leasing of any robotic labor, by the corporation. Not saying they can't use it, but limit the direct control of it. If I could lease the robots and then contract their labor to a corporation that needs it, I could lease or buy several units and have multiple income streams, based on the number I had in the pool. Of course, limiting the number to someone who can afford many and allocating a minimum that everyone would have would also be necessary.
As I said, it's not thoroughly thought through, but it could be a starting point for people to continue to "own" the labor.
Reasonable. I have share similar thoughts regarding distribution in other comments on this post, let me know what you think.
Another solution is tactical irrelevance: creating your own alternate structures that are contextually irrelevant to the dominant paradigm. Solutions within or similar to the dominant paradigm are likely to be warped by the deep probability well of the dominant paradigm and coopted towards its goals.
This does not work because the utility of renegade systems diminishes as adoption of the majority view grows. See TCP/IP, railways, and so on.
Yeah blockchain sounds good though what they're ultimately capable of is still a mystery. Not following it at the moment. What you're suggesting seems like it's similar to what you've been proposing but now it's on blockchain or the cloud. They can exercise their right to take part in a strike to stop/boycott production/compute of certain companies by sacrificing some of our compute/production quota. We can allocate compute/production power to companies that align with our values. Or maybe universally at first and then we have our own blacklisted companies. We can also shutdown the government and the police/military using similar mechanisms. I will also add that governing such a complex system would require neural implants and access to ASI as a basic right as it is a necessity for anyone taking part in governing and auditing such complex systems. The transition to such a system however would require a near miracle to happen I'm afraid.
Read “our knowledge system has collapsed “ by Ted Goia. It’s possible that the labor pillar can be replaced with a new knowledge pillar. If not, we may be in trouble
Knowledge, data, and algorithms are common trends that everyone is revolving around. So yes, that seems to be the general consensus.
Do you have any concern that AI will be able to decrypt blockchains?
and... thanks for what you do. You've been a go-to for AI and for futurethink in general.
better health always to you and yours.
I’m not too worried. the fear is that quantum-proof blockchain is impossible but there are plenty of folks working on quantum-ready blockchain.
Historically any class of people that achieved abundance beyond a single generation lost it due lack of purpose or adaptation to changing conditions whether internally (lack of involvement) or externally (the abundance was attacked). Before we get to universal abundance which seems the premise of a post labor discussion, how do we create universal abundance for the post labor discussion to be relevant and expanded for the sustainability question?
You're conflating generational patterns within families with macroeconomic policies. Nations rarely, if ever, lose "generational" wealth accumulated over time, except in cases of war.
I’m new to this. Not sure I understand. Does this mean we would divide our society and infrastructure into a sort of « grid » and then each citizen would « buy » / « own » a small part of that grid ?
No. It's about creating a network effect of power.
How do we get this in front of the right people in government? They need to be aware of what is coming and options in dealing with the impending challenges. Have you spoken with economists and politicians about PLE? Perhaps not waiting until unemployment is at the 10-14% threshold for congress to action would be pragmatic?
I have a global audience. The right people are watching. We still need to build the movement. The big thing will be the book. A good solid book is a powerful coordinating mechanism.
Yes, a book. A big book with lots of TLDR, appendices, footnotes. etc. Peer reviewed and backed with opinions from noted economists, futurists, etc. And then a book to explain the Book. Hurry Sundown (you're gonna need a team)
I have a team. And yes, there are two books planned.