Translator's note:
Roberto Mangabeira Unger, born in Rio de Janeiro in 1947, is a world-renowned critical jurist who served as Brazil's Minister of Strategy and is currently a professor of law at Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound. Anger visited the Central Party School, Tsinghua University, and the Development Research Center of the State Council in 2017 to promote theoretical exploration of the knowledge economy in both Chinese and foreign academic circles. In 2022, Anger and a translator jointly taught the course "The Future of Political Economy" at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School, during which they explored the shocks and opportunities caused by the knowledge economy production mode across the globe. This article is Anger's latest reflection on this topic based on the political and economic difficulties in Europe and America.
Roberto Mangbela Anger
The "irreplaceable" shackles
The world is struggling under the "irreplaceable" shackles. Throughout the rich countries of the North Atlantic, looking back on the great moment of rebuilding social systems and reshaping ideologies, what emerged was a socially conservative democratic system. This had already appeared before World War II, but matured after the war. The corresponding phenomenon in the United States is the Roosevelt New Deal: it promised to strengthen economic regulation, reduce inequality through the implementation of progressive taxes and redistribution of social expenditures, and manage political economies "counterclockwise" through fiscal and monetary policies.
This type of reconstruction project once appeared in an extremely precise manner. In Western Europe, it is necessary to protect oneself and prevent outsiders in the labor market; Protecting small enterprises and preventing large enterprises in the product market; In industrial control, it is necessary to protect existing entities and prevent challengers... This social engineering also relies on the government to facilitate transactions, such as social agreements and income policies. Once we reach an agreement on the allocation of costs and benefits in macro policies, we can avoid catastrophic conflicts.
However, the current trend is that social democracy is forced to abandon various social contracts and also to abandon the practice of protecting internal interests at the expense of external interests - due to the high cost and injustice. Most importantly, the traditional industry represented by the Ford style large-scale production chain, which is the core and foundation of social democracy in history, has gradually been replaced by more advanced productivity - the knowledge economy - nowadays. The "vanguard" of the knowledge economy is both cross industry and ubiquitous in the production system, as well as isolated, as it excludes most workers and businesses.
Under the pressure of these changes and criticisms, social democracy has retreated thousands of miles, retreating from its historical stronghold and serving as its last line of defense: ensuring a high investment in human resources. However, the contradiction is that its source of funds is indirectly accumulated consumption tax through functional similar methods such as fixed valuation and value accumulation.
Those who lead the criticism of social democracy are often referred to as neoliberals. The most prominent neoliberal thinkers have continuously developed their criticisms and proposals, forming a general opposition to active government intervention. Under the fierce fire of neoliberalism and the continuous loss of the socio-economic foundation of large-scale industrial production, social democracy has been punished and continuously compressed, but still insists on maintaining humanized market economic order through corrective and compensatory redistribution measures. This social democracy is also known as "social liberalism". It can be said that neoliberalism has created social liberalism. But in the current situation, compared to neoliberalism, perhaps this "social liberalism" is the orthodoxy of the Western world.
Whether it is past social democracy, neoliberalism, or just mentioned social liberalism, they all share an institutional premise: they all accept the basic framework of market order and democratic politics. However, it has been proven that this architecture is unable to solve, or even address, the core challenges of contemporary society. None of these propositions can maintain socially inclusive economic growth, alleviate the huge inequality caused by hierarchical division of the production system, recast social cohesion in the face of multicultural reality, or even find other reform engines to replace the conditional role of war in promoting change. In many countries, right-wing populism fills this gap, but the solutions it provides are non structural and therefore destined to be powerless to change the status quo.
To overcome this "irreplaceable" dilemma, we cannot simply imagine creating some "alternative" visions. But if we do not replace the feeling of "irreplaceable" through imagination, then we have even less hope of breaking free from its numerous shackles.
Redefining "conservatism" and "progressivism", "right-wing" and "left-wing"
In the current situation, it is necessary to reinterpret the concepts of left and right, conservatism and progress. We must focus on two dimensions, one is methods and practice, and the other is our goal itself.
Conservatives pursue their goals within the established institutional framework, while progressives believe that significant changes must be structural and cannot be achieved without institutional innovation and the ideological prerequisites it relies on. But we also realize that true structural changes are almost always presented in a fragmented manner. A comprehensive replacement of the current system is both impractical and self limiting.
Conservatives believe that human life should be insignificant. Only a small number of elites can create new things, disrupt the old order, and avoid being judged mediocre by history. The belief of progressives is that everyone can achieve a fuller life: higher abilities, broader perspectives, greater strength - as long as we dare to change.
Based on these two standards, the majority of those who claim to be progressive may actually be conservatives.
Structural Vision and Its Suppression
Classical European social thought reached its peak in Marxist theory, providing us with an effective way to contemplate structural and structural changes. But in the years to come, these revolutionary insights were discounted by some necessary assumptions: a fixed list of regimes, each of which is an indivisible system that alternates and follows a set of established historical laws... On the other hand, American modern social sciences suppressed structural visions in order to break these illusions.
To break free from the "irreplaceable" shackles, it is necessary to approach structural changes in a different way of thinking, especially in technical and professional fields such as economics and law, which are closest to power.
Storm and Shelter
The institutionally conservative social democracy, or social liberalism, represents the last ideological self reconstruction of wealthy North Atlantic countries. Its goal is to build a safe haven that is not oppressed by public or private sectors. But the value of this' safe haven 'depends on what kind of innovation and change' storm 'erupts around it. The role of a safe haven is to enable workers and citizens to thrive. As parents say to their children: Since love at home is unconditional, then go out and start a storm! The institutionally conservative social democracy seems to be adept at creating safe havens, but unfortunately lacks the vision and courage to cause a storm.
The Knowledge Economy from Minority to Majority
The core of today's progressive stance is to restructure the market order. After all, no country reforms first and then considers what needs to be done. The usual situation is: struggling at a turning point in the social economy and having to reform. And I believe that the ultimate pursuit of progressive political economy should be to transform the knowledge economy of the few into the knowledge economy of the majority. Today, knowledge economy production is both cross-border and isolated - in every production sector, numerous businesses and workers are isolated. This isolation explains our current economic stagnation (as most people are unable to master the most advanced forms of production) and also explains the deterioration of economic inequality (due to the hierarchical structure of the production system). Looking at the world, we must face the core challenge of economic development: the shortcuts to developing traditional industries in the past are no longer feasible. An alternative is a knowledge economy that is socially inclusive, but at least not yet achievable.
The deepening and generalization of the knowledge economy can be divided into three stages. In the first phase, the focus is on how to lift up small and medium-sized enterprises in the rear of the economy, and how to transform independent service providers into craftsmen with higher technology. In the second phase, we gradually formed a distinctive institutional architecture in the process of promoting small and medium-sized enterprises: a cooperative partnership and strategic synergy between economic individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises, local governments, and central governments. This interactive relationship is decentralized, diversified, participatory, and experimental, complementing competition between enterprises and economic actors. In the third phase, which is still in the imagination, the production assets are stored in social foundations and are not entirely led by the government or controlled by private investors. Instead, these production assets are distributed through a circular capital auction: within a certain time limit, they are granted to innovators with the ability to achieve maximum returns. This system can be called 'capitalism without capitalists'.
Labor and Capital
A knowledge economy that is both socially inclusive and capable of continuous innovation, capable of deep cultivation and broadcasting, must require an upward tilt in labor returns. This contradicts the trend towards lower labor costs and increasingly unsafe positions. Practical economics generally believes that real wages cannot continue to rise beyond productivity growth. If we rely on legislation to increase nominal wages, we cannot escape the fate of being consumed by inflation.
However, if we compare economies at various stages of development and control for differences in factor endowments, we will find that labor participation varies greatly among countries, mainly due to different legal systems either strengthening or weakening the relative strength and position between "labor" and "capital". This issue is not limited to income alone. Marx and Keynes both believed that once we overcome resource scarcity, we can escape the unpleasant burden of work. But overcoming scarcity, at least in the short term, is irrelevant. Instead of extravagantly seeking freedom from the economy, we should pursue freedom within the economy.
We first need to distinguish between organized and unorganized components in the labor market. In today's world, organizers are the majority. As is well known, informal economies are prevalent in large developing countries. Vulnerable employment is not only a headache for developing countries, but also for wealthy countries. As for organized labor, a simple improvement measure is trade unions. But what measures are expected to change the historical trend of unions returning and shrinking in large numbers, only surviving in the public sector? Maybe we can mix the automatic membership system stipulated in the Latin American corporatist labor law with the contractual and collective bargaining independent trade union system in rich countries in Europe and the United States. But I always believe that using 20th century methods to solve 21st century problems may be too late.
To solve the problem of unorganized labor, we have no other choice but to innovate. This requires us to reject two currently popular narratives about labor: one is the demand for collectivism, which threatens to illegally legalize various innovative production methods in order to protect the interests of a few workers, at the expense of the interests of the majority of unorganized workers; Another approach is neoliberalism, which disregards the vast majority of people in the name of increasing labor market flexibility, allowing them to survive economic turmoil and wage devaluation.
In the near future, we must first develop a set of legal concepts and rules to reassess the reality of the knowledge economy: it is an isolated production "pioneer" that dominates the knowledge economy. We must pick up a 'slide rule' to distinguish between economic elasticity that is both legal and inevitable, and economic insecurity that is both destructive and derogatory to labor. Based on new information and communication technologies, we can organize vulnerable labor groups and provide them with possible and feasible assistance. If the support fails, it is necessary to use direct legal intervention in the employment relationship, reshape the terms of the labor contract based on the principle of price neutrality, and ensure that labor under fragile employment relationships also receives reasonable compensation according to the salary standards under stable employment conditions.
In the medium term, we need to examine the direction and consequences of technological changes. Technology has no inherent logic, and how it evolves depends on what logic we give it. Technology connects two experiments: mobilizing natural forces and mobilizing collaborative forces. Alternatively, technology embodies the formulas and algorithms of repetitive work, serves as a boundary between repeatable and non repeatable work, and is a fertile ground for imagination. There is no doubt that technology will always replace labor. What we should be concerned about is how to influence the development trajectory of technology, so that it can both replace and enhance labor, and enable machines to empower the "anti machine" of humans - machines embody algorithms, and humans embody imagination. To achieve this goal, the government can at least formulate corresponding tax incentives and counter incentives. But the more significant intervention is to take measures to sponsor variants of technology that have the potential to upgrade and replace labor, especially artificial intelligence, robotics, and additive manufacturing. The government can reshape technology to make it more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises and individual economies that are far from the vanguard of the knowledge economy. No one deserves to do work that is instinctively done by machines.
In the long run, it is necessary to improve the form and level of free labor. Self employment, cooperation and mutual assistance, these work models can replace the forms of free labor that have been criticized by liberals and socialism: wage labor under economic coercion. But neither liberals nor socialists have yet to solve a problem: how can we compromise with the urgent demands of economies of scale in a complex modern economy? To solve this problem, it is necessary to innovate in the legal system and decentralize the popularization of production resources and opportunities. The market order should not be bound up with a dogmatic market concept, but should limit the absolute and permanent control of economic entities over their own resources, in order to extend the process of decentralization. At the end of this road, there is a circular auction of capital - what I call 'capitalism without capitalists'. On the other hand, there is a unified concept of property rights developed in the 19th century, which requires all constituent rights of property to be held by the absolute holder. Throughout the history of the world's most important legal traditions, the components of property rights have always been scattered: at different levels, different people always propose partial property rights claims for production resources. Absolute unified property rights can continue to serve as one of the forms of decentralized economic experimentation, but should not be the only form. The main advantage of unified property rights is that it allows holders to act arbitrarily at their own risk, pursuing innovations that others may have no confidence in, without being constrained by others.
High Energy Democracy
Corresponding to improving market order and popularizing the knowledge economy is the deepening of "high-energy democracy". Its ideal is to control the social structure through collective resolutions, weaken the dependence of change on crises, and then overthrow the rule of the dead over the living. This high-energy democracy requires institutional innovation in five aspects. Every aspect starts with simple and fragmented measures, gradually leading to significant changes. In fact, there have been forward-looking debates and experiments in every aspect around the world. Innovation and change are not natural, but a struggle to change the direction of the social economy, in order to no longer rely on the next war and destruction to create changes.
The first group of institutional innovation is to "heat up" politics: to enhance the degree of organized participation in political life. The basic premise of conservative political science and governance is that politics must be cold and institutional, or hot rather than institutional - or even anti institutional. Based on this premise, we must have made a choice between Madison and Mussolini! This premise excludes a core concept of progressive politics: politics can have both heat and institutions, which can support a high degree of public participation.
The second group of institutional innovation needs to "accelerate" politics. Traditionally, conservative politics require a "slowdown", while liberalism requires a "decentralization" - the United States' decentralization model is widely imitated in Central and South America. Progressives can propose some heated propositions against the forces that hinder change, such as granting the President and Congress the same power to lift the deadlock (in the North South American context). The executors of constitutional privileges must jointly bear political risks.
The third group of institutional innovation aims to integrate the convenience of centralized decision-making and the experimental nature of hierarchical decentralization. A country is always on a big track, but it often allows its components to deviate and even produce different small tracks in governance practices. This type of institutional innovation has two stages. The first is to cross regions horizontally and levels vertically, promote two-way cooperation, collaborate with various forces, and form a cutting-edge experiment. The second is that different governance methods have been developed in different regions, but in order to prevent abuse, this privilege must be reviewed by representative branches of the government and judicial branches. The prejudice in the past was that federal states were more likely to conduct experiments than the subordinate regions of a unitary state. But I would like to say that a unitary country also has advantages: it does not have to have all its components enjoy equal privileges at the same time. Progressives often hope to promote reform from the perspective of the relationship between wealth and politics, but at least in the United States, activating a positive relationship between the central and local governments can be a starting point that guides both the left and right wings to look forward.
The fourth group of institutional innovation aims to weaken the contradiction between class society and democratic politics. To trigger change, it is necessary to establish a power that is both structural and local in nature. If some vulnerable groups believe that they cannot be freed from the current constraints of political and economic collective behavior, relevant departments should have tools and capabilities to relieve these groups, and even restructure the organizational or practical behavior that leads to these unfavorable factors. At present, this is unheard of. In the United States, there was a time when judicial branches attempted to develop a new procedure to achieve this goal: complex enforcement or structural injunctions. These judicial reformers initially only had contact with marginal institutions: the school system, prison system, and psychological hospitals, but their energy was exhausted. Today, we want a force that is fully funded by the government, selected and capable, and actively rationalized to achieve the goals that judicial builders once sought through restructuring procedures under institutional constraints.
The fifth group of institutional innovation aims to enrich local participation, break political deadlock through the network of relationships between communities, and also through majority decision-making nationwide. These democratic proposals are constructive, rather than requiring mass committees to form a government, abolish all representative mechanisms, and drive out all professional politicians - these are just long-term fantasies of the left.
Self organized public society
A society without organization cannot produce alternative solutions, let alone put them into practice. Improving market order must be accompanied by the self-organization of public society outside the market and government.
The accumulation of social capital, including the density of its connections and the collective capabilities it supports, is not a transcendent phenomenon