Saturday, 27 July 2024

A somewhat s hortened version of the P2pP foundation entry on Transfinancial Economics

The following is a brief paper which also appears in a respected academic book edited by Dr Debesh Bhowmik. It is entitled An Approach Towards Central Bank Digital Currency published by Kunal Books, New Delhi, 2022. In Chapter4 the material below is presented. Also, it should be mentioned that a paper published in 2016 entitled Orthodox Monetary Theory: A Critique From Post-Keynesianism and Transfinancial Economics by Dante A. Urbina appears in a book called International Monetary System. Past, Present, and Future Regal Publishing, India. RS




FUTURISTIC ECONOMICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?


Robert Searle


Abstract 


The following is in brief concerned with the very basics of an emerging paradigm known as Transfinancial Economics or TFE. It can be seen as a form of Keynesian Economics. Basic to it is the huge relevance of the use of computers and information technology in finance. This would act as a means of notably influencing the economy towards a more ethical, and greener environmentally friendly economy as never before. Many will regard TFE as being similar to Modern Monetary Theory or MMT which has gained a large amount of publicity in recent years. However, the latter is regarded as being a precursor and possible stopgap to TFE which is far more advanced. At the time of writing what follows is still “work in progress”. Of course, it raises many questions which may be answered in the near future such as TFE’s connection with exchange rates and of course the possible emergence of Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs.



Keywords: Transfinancial Economics, Modern Monetary Theory, Inflation Taxation, Digital Price Controls, Climate Change


JEL Classification Codes: E42,F33,F65,G00,O3,Q54


1. Nationwide Electronic/Digital Price Controls


Essentially, Transfinancial Economics or TFE believes notably that new unearned repayable and non-repayable money can be digitally created ex nihilo and phased into the economy safely without leading to uncontrolled levels of inflation or indeed hyperinflation. This is simply done with the aid of highly flexible electronic digital price controls used for nearly every kind of financial transaction in real time. Thus, if there is a concern about some rise in the prices of certain goods and services these could be digitally capped temporarily. This would be an instantaneous process and could occur automatically in any part of the economy. This could be undertaken with the help of supercomputers or more likely by quantum computers (Clegg, 2021).


Of course, such digital price controls are not the ideal way of doing things but they are better than nothing. Some form of compensation could be created for retailers if desired. However, it must be stressed here that with the right algorithms the market price is allowed to change naturally as much as possible. Whether we like it or not most of the money exists as digital data in a bank. It is used in any number of transaction but “real” money like cash and coin can still be used (unmonitored or possibly monitored in some way) but it would make up only a tiny fraction of the overall economy, and hence, would have near zero significance in our understanding of the whole economy. This is an important but basic point to understand.


Also, in connection notably with vital climate change projects a legally binding agreement should ideally be undertaken to use certain algorithms to track funding. They could detect and instantly ” freeze” in real-time any money that may be involved in fraud.



2. Big Data and Real-Time Economics/The Uncloaking of the “Invisible Hand”.


As one might well realize it would be possible to understand the entire economy in real-time (or near real-time). This colossal accounting data would be created 24/7 with virtually every transaction notably using barcodes, or something similar. The central Inflation Authority would be programmed to instantly check the inflation status of each product or service and if at all necessary instant temporary price capping may occur. Hence, a huge picture of the economy would be possible and could prove invaluable for future economists. Also, such incoming real-time economic indicators would be totally up to date and as such would have no long-time lags unlike conventional economic data.


In spite of this though such information cannot fully rule out uncertainty in the economy. Yet, the data emerging instantaneously should at least give us a far better idea of how it is “working” and this could be important for decision-making. AI or Artificial Intelligence could also play a vital role in all this. Apart from identified transaction data there are what are referred to as Faster Indicators. These use various types of economic activity to be factored in to give us an even wider understanding of the economy in real time (Salina, 2020; Haldane, 2018).


It must be made clear that what we have been saying so far is a capitalist economy. TFE though can also be adapted into a socialist or communist type of economy because it can notably make central planning a lot easier and more likely to succeed unlike conventional economics. Indeed, Economic Cybernetics is an example of this kind of approach, and it is also possible in some future time to have an economy which is “completely” automated and where money is no longer necessary (Cockshott & Cottrell, 1993).


The concepts of TFE are like those proposed by Clifford Douglas and his Social Credit Movement but they have the added dimension of using Big Data and instant digital price capping which did not exist in his time. If he were around today, he would have been impressed by the use of computers, smart phones, plastic cards, et al in developing a futuristic economy. Modern Monetary Theory or MMT is to some extent similar. It should be added too that the term “Social Credit” has nothing to do with the dystopian system of the same name in China (Heydorn, 2014).


Finally in this section of this brief paper it should be said that in time the financial industry will hopefully be powered more and more by sustainable (non-fossil fuel) electricity, and it should be said too that it is possible to have a high degree of commercial confidentiality in connection with the digital transaction data instantaneously going to the Inflation Authority 24/7 for specific businesses of one kind, or another.


3. Maintaining the Value of Money in Real-Time.


TFE would be able to maintain the value of money in real-time at the point of sale (POS). For example, person T buys product A in a shop and its retail price is instantly checked for its inflation status. It is found to be above the inflation rate by 50p and the customer though has already spent this amount but is compensated for it digitally by having it recreated into his or her account. This is called Above Inflation Adjustment. In another instance, person T buys product C which is 30p below the inflation rate and it is the retailer who gets the extra 30p by a digital recreation of it in her or her account. This is called Below Inflation Adjustment. (McDermott,2004).



4. Dynamic Pricing in Real-Time


Fintech is short for Financial Technology. It is a critical part of the TFE paradigm without which it cannot exist. A good example of such financial technology which exists now is Dynamic Pricing. Essentially, it can automatically deal with variable pricing due to changes in supply and demand. It has been successfully utilised in areas such as transportation, hospitality, professional sports, retail, and the like. Even Amazon uses it along with many other companies (Sharda, 2018). All this adds greater credibility to the idea of developing a genuine real-time economy on a national and ultimately international scale. Of course, it has to be realized and remembered that real-time data is used by financial markets around the world in which investors can keep an eye on the value of their shares, or securities. Traders can use such information to make “bets” on the rise and fall of prices of the various companies such as Apple, Google, Unilever, and many other lesser-known ones.



5. TFE and the Climate Change Emergency


At present the greatest challenge facing humanity is the climate change emergency. Tragically, it seems highly likely that it will become irreversible (if it is not already). As such governments, Bigtech companies, and smaller businesses must try if possible to make serious efforts to create credible resilient adaption and mitigation projects on a scale never before known in human history. All this ultimately costs money. Hence, TFE. With this emerging paradigm it would be possible to create new money to fund credible and “feasible” green projects. Of course, investors could be invited to invest venture capital into such investments which could prove lucrative. Such projects may seem in some cases more like “science fiction” but now is the time to think outside the box otherwise we could see the global demise of the human race. It is simple as that. Climate change emergency is not just a physical challenge it is also a spiritual one of the highest order.


Here are a few examples of potential green projects which need to be undertaken (though some of them are in the making or have already been done but not on a scale ultimately necessary for human survival) and they include more solar and wind and solar power facilities; more factory plants and mechanical trees to suck carbon emissions out of the atmosphere; more electric cars; more advances in Nanotechnology in which atomic structures could create new materials in a world of limited resources; possible underground cities and even underground agriculture may be a required to some extent; natural solutions; sun dimming which may be necessary but a controversial move; more flood defences; more recycling centres and so on. At the same time with all this going on the likes of entrepreneurs such as Bezos and Musk can “wisely” continue with the possible colonisation of the moon and even mars (Gates, 2002; Carney, 2021).


6. The Basic Differences between Transfinancial Economics and Modern Monetary Theory



Modern Monetary Theory is at the time of writing been in the public spotlight for several years and has attracted much public attention. It is similar to Transfinancial Economics or TFE. MMT claims that the government is the sole issuer of the national currency and can fund public expenditure and only raises taxation, if necessary, as a means of controlling inflation at some future date. In this respect, TFE is in agreement. Infact, something like MMT already exists. It is called Deficit Spending. This is when governments need more money and can borrow it and (or) create new amounts of it (Kelton, 2020). This of course works but only to a limited extent. Now, the key differences are:

a) TFE uses digital price controls to monitor and if necessary, cap the market price. These would cover the entire economy and not just tiny sections of it. MMT though would use taxation to control inflation instead but may ultimately use price controls.


b) Unlike MMT TFE has a very advanced understanding of the economy via Big Data in real-time whilst the former would probably largely rely on old outdated understanding of economics.


c) As MMT continues to create new money into the economy a point may be reached that too much money will circulate and could lead to not just gradual rises in inflation but to a sudden mass catastrophic state of hyperinflation. With TFE such problems are dealt with directly by digital controls that would instantaneously control the situation at a touch of a button or indeed happen automatically.


d) Since TFE would have a far more accurate comprehension of the economy in real-time it can assess the potential inflation tax liability (possibly as an online sales tax) months or years ahead. On the other hand, MMT could find itself in a situation in which the overall inflation tax liability would be too heavy, and could even cause social unrest. Incidentally, it should be added that a tax rebate is possible in which the inflation taxation paid could be digitally recreated in full, or in part at a future date.


e) Unlike MMT TFE can adjust the value of money if necessary and instantaneously when products and services are bought in real-time at the point of sale (POS). This of course is when the inflation status

is checked by the Inflation Authority. Thus, the purchasing power of money is largely or wholly maintained. This was explained in brief early on using two examples.

f) In MMT the government is seen as the key issuer of currency as something which is non- repayable. However, special private banks could be had in which such grants or (non-governmental) “subsides” could be created digitally.



Key References

[1] Carney, Mark. (2021). Value (s), Building a Better World for All. William Collins.


[2] Clegg, Brian. (2021). Quantum Computing; The Transformative Technology of the Qubit Revolution. Icon


[3] Cockshott, W. Paul., & Cottrell, Allin. (1993). Towards a New Socialism. Spokesman Books.


[4] Gates, William Henry. (2021). How to avoid a Climate Disaster; The Solutions we have and the Breakthroughs. Allen Lane.


[5] Haldane, Andy. (2018, April 30). Mapping the economy in real time is almost within our grasp. Financial Times.https://www.ft.com/content/58190dc2- 4c79-11e8-97e4-13afc 22 d86d4


[6] Heydorn, Oliver. M. (2014). Social Credit Economics. Canada: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.


[7] Kansas, Salina. (2021, October23). The Real-Time Revolution; How the pandemic reshaped the dismal science. The Economist.https:// www.economist.com/briefing/2021/10/23/enter-third-wave-economics


[8] Kelton, Stephanie. (2020). The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and how to build a Better Economy. John Murray.


[9] McDermott, John. (2004).Economics in Real Time, a Theoretical Reconstruction. The University of Michigan Press.


[10] Sharda, Sahaj. (2018). The Extinction of the Price Tag; How dynamic pricing can save you. New Degree Press.







Some key Points to understand in brief



I. One possible problem with TFE is ofcourse shortages due notably in connection with food security. This is not mentioned in the above paper in detail. This could be alleviated to a large extent with forward thinking and credible planning using special monitored non-repayable money. However, as Climate Change worsens governments will probably be forced to introduce manual price controls but such a measure though would largely be resisted by mainstream economics. Ofcourse, conspiracy theorists would come out of the wood work if and when this happens. Another issue is that highly flexible digital price controls unlike their manual counterparts would be far more efficient (though they could be better termed as inflation controls).But the former could act as a stopgap for the latter if absolutely necessary.



II. Apart from the Central Bank creating new green non-payable money which ofcourse is already happening to some extent new green repayable money can also be created. Special private banks or indeed, existing ones could also be used in part and would have an operating fee as profit instead of charging interest. The source of such funding would come from the Central Bank or some other kind of legal entity.In other words, the private sector could profit greatly via TFE.



III. In the normal state of affairs green goods and services should as time goes by become cheaper and hence more attractive as demand naturally increases from the public. However, this process is already happening somewhat "slowly" but there are marketing stratagies which could artificially alter this situation, and this needs to be developed to create green competition using small or large subsidies. Companies that could loose out at first would be compensated using new captial created ex nihilo. The details of exactly how green artificial "competition" could work out is still being developed in detail at the time of writing.



IV. The originator of TFE is very much aware that Transfinancial Economics would increase emissions. This is unfortunate but hopefully with further funding the way or ways to deal with this problem would be better funded as never before. There are ofcourse a number of so-called carbon capture programmes in the world, but much more needs to be done. Anyway, all this means is that if we have Rapid Green Growth or RGG many people would still die during the Climate Change Crisis. This is tragically unavoidable. But if this were slowly undertaken (as is the case now) it is more probable that the death toll would be much higher in the long run.


V. It is important to understand that when TFE becomes a reality there is no direct or indirect of taxation. The reason is simple. Since money can retain its value in real time it cannot be inflated to a serious degree, and cause devaluation of money. This means ofcourse that more money can be transmitted into the economy safely. All this has notable implications for charities, and NGOs, or governmental organisations as it would mean that raising money from earned sources would no longer be abolutely necessary. This is revolutionary. The only limits ofcourse for this are limited human and natural resources at any point in time.


Originally, the above entry included a lengthy piece on TFE but this is not included here, though it may re-aapear. It maybe found elsewhere probably on The Economics Realms blogspot easily found on the internet. Furthermore, over the years TFE has been circulated around on the internet, and has attracted a number of influential people including Steve Keen, Ellen Brown, Richard Murphy, Hazel Henderson (who was especially keen on TFE), et al.

Monday, 1 July 2024

Inside the world's hottest city where fish boil in the sea and birds fall from the sky

 


Kuwait City, the world's hottest city, has been branded 'unliveable' as temperatures continue to soar - with the coast so hot it can boil sea creatures to death


Birds fall from the sky and fish boil in the sea in the world's hottest city.

One doesn't have to be an ardent environmentalist to see existential warning signs in Kuwait City. The Middle Eastern settlement is an intense place to be in a kind of Old Testament way. Once upon a time, Kuwait City was known as the "Marseilles of the Gulf", with a booming fishing industry and coastal spots that attracted flushed sun worshippers.


However, just like many of Britain's seaside towns, this hub has seen better days in recent years - but for reasons that would seem strange to anyone who has braved a chilly walk on one of the UK's beauty spots. Where the Victorian glamour in parts of the UK's coast has been replaced with penny arcades and battered shop fronts, Kuwait City has simply become far too hot.

On 21 July 2016, the Mitribah weather station in northern Kuwait recorded a temperature of 54C (129F) - the third-highest reading in the world. The recent scorching Cerberus Heatwave in Europe wouldn't have caused much fuss in this Middle Eastern country, which bested Europe's highs by 10C.



Kuwait City has become quite startlingly hot 
Image: 
(Image: GETTY))

Climate scientists are warning that the country is heating up faster than the rest of the world, with temperatures predicted to rise by 5.5C (10F) by the end of the century compared to the 2000s. In 2021, temperatures soared above 50C (122F) for 19 days, a record that could be broken this year.

Kuwait City, a place made mostly of unforgiving concrete and asphalt, is becoming too hot to live in safely. For much of the day in the summer outside is a dangerous place. Scientific data also shows that the already dry country is getting less rain each year, leading to more frequent and intense dust storms.



hile the locals take refuge indoors, the pigeons have to settle for the shade 
Image: 
(Image: GETTY))

There have been shocking reports of birds falling dead from the sky and seahorses boiling in the bay. Even the hardiest pigeons are seeking shade from the ferocity of the sun. Temperatures of 50C are not just uncomfortable, they're dangerous. They're 13C (55F) above body temperature and can cause serious health problems like heat exhaustion, heart issues and even death if people are exposed for too long.

For the first time ever, the Kuwaiti government has allowed funerals to be held at night this year because of the extreme heat.


Nowadays, those who are rich enough to afford it rarely go outside, choosing instead to stay in the cool comfort of their air-conditioned homes, offices or shopping centres. The current conditions have led to the construction of science-fiction like infrastructure. One instance is an indoor shopping street filled with palm trees and European-style shops, providing a refuge for customers from the harsh weather.

A 2020 study showed that roughly two-thirds (67 per cent) of total home electricity use in residences comes from air conditioning units operating non-stop. Joshua Wood wrote in ExpatsExchange about the "high quality of life" in this "modern, luxurious and safe" country, but warned that the heat can be "very hot from May through September" and become "insanely hot" in June, July and August.




Dust storms are a regular occurrence in Kuwait City 

Image: 

(Image: GETTY)


Despite the heat, the streets are far from empty. Migrant workers, mainly from Arab, South and South East Asian nations, makeup about 70% of the country's population. Many people are enticed by the controversial kafala system to move to Kuwait and work in sectors like construction or household services. These workers populate the steaming public buses of the capital city and crowd the streets.

Some research from last year by the Institute of Physics highlighted that migrant workers can be especially susceptible to negative health outcomes because of exposure to harsh temperatures. The research suggests that by the century's end, climate change could cause heat-related deaths to rise by 5.1% to 11.7% across the entire population, and even by up to 15% among non-Kuwaiti individuals.

Warnings about the planet often are ignored, yet in Kuwait where the ravages of climate change are already clear to see - the carbon footprint is massive - only Bahrain and Qatar's is higher.


While neighbouring countries have pledged to make big reductions in emissions, Kuwait's promises pale in comparison. At COP26 the country said it would only reduce emissions by a little bit (7.4%) by 2035. Demand for energy is going to get bigger (three times bigger) by 2030, Kuwaiti government officials have predicted. Most of this is because of the expected increase in using cooling systems indoors.

Since much of the cost of electricity is paid for by the government, people don't feel the need to limit its use. There is a similar set up with water, which comes from procedures that use a lot of energy.

One expert of environmental issues, Salman Zafar, wrote: "Kuwait could be potentially facing serious impacts of global warming in the form of floods, droughts, depletion of aquifers, inundation of coastal areas, frequent sandstorms, loss of biodiversity, significant damage to ecosystem, threat to agricultural production and outbreak of diseases."


Digital Ecosocialism: Breaking the power of Big Tech

 


We can no longer ignore the role of Big Tech in entrenching global inequality. To curtail the forces of digital capitalism, we need an ecosocialist Digital Tech Deal.

This article by Michael Kwet and illustration by Zoran Svilar were originally published here under a Creative Commons Licence.

In the space of a few years, the debate on how to rein in Big Tech has become mainstream, discussed across the political spectrum. Yet, so far the proposals to regulate largely fail to address the capitalist, imperialist and environmental dimensions of digital power, which together are deepening global inequality and pushing the planet closer to collapse. We urgently need to build a ecosocialist digital ecosystem, but what would that look like and how can we get there ?

This essay aims to highlight some of the core elements of a digital socialist agenda — a Digital Tech Deal (DTD) — centered on principles of anti-imperialism, class abolition, reparations and degrowth that can transition us to a 21st century socialist economy. It draws on proposals for transformation as well as existing models that can be scaled up, and seeks to integrate those with other movements pushing for alternatives to capitalism, in particular the degrowth movement. The scale of needed transformation is massive, but we hope this attempt at outlining a socialist Digital Tech Deal provokes further brainstorming and debate over how an egalitarian digital ecosystem would look and the steps we might take to get there.

DIGITAL CAPITALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF ANTITRUST

Progressive criticisms of the tech sector are often drawn from a mainstream capitalist framework centered around antitrust, human rights and worker well-being. Formulated by elite scholars, journalists, think tanks and policymakers in the Global North, they advance a US-Eurocentric reformist agenda that assumes the continuation of capitalism, Western imperialism and economic growth.

Antitrust reformism is particularly problematic because it assumes the problem of the digital economy is merely the size and “unfair practices” of big companies rather than digital capitalism itself. Antitrust laws were created in the United States to promote competition and restrain the abusive practices of monopolies (then called “trusts”) in the late 19th century. Thanks to the sheer scale and power of contemporary Big Tech, these laws are back on the agenda, with their advocates pointing to how big companies not only undermine consumers, workers and small businesses, but even challenge the foundations of democracy itself.

Antitrust advocates argue that monopolies distort an otherwise ideal capitalist system and that what is needed is a level playing field for everyone to compete. Yet, competition is only good for those with resources to compete with. More than half the global population lives on less than $7.40 per day, and nobody stops to ask how they will “compete” in the “competitive marketplace” envisioned by Western antitrust advocates. This is all the more daunting for low and middle-income countries considering the largely borderless nature of the internet.

At a broader level, as I argued in a previous article, published at ROAR, antitrust advocates ignore the globally unequal division of labor and exchange of goods and services that has been deepened by the digitalization of the global economy. The likes of Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, Intel, AMD and many other firms are so big because they own the intellectual property and means of computation that is used across the world. Antitrust thinkers, especially those in the US, end up systematically erasing American empire and the Global South from the picture.

European antitrust initiatives are no better. There, policymakers who huff and puff about the ills of Big Tech are quietly trying to build their own tech giants. The UK aims to produce its own trillion-dollar behemoth. President Emanuel Macron will be pumping €5 billion into tech startups in the hope that France will have at least 25 so-called “unicorns” — companies valued at $1 billion or more — by 2025. Germany is spending €3 billion to become a global AI powerhouse and a world leader (i.e. market colonizer) in digital industrialization. For its part, the Netherlands aims to become a “unicorn nation.” And in 2021, the widely-lauded European Union’s competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager said that Europe needs to build its own European tech giants. As part of the EU’s digital targets for 2030, Vestager said the EU aims to “double the number of European unicorns from 122 today.”

Instead of opposing Big Tech corporations in principle, European policymakers are opportunists seeking to expand their own portion of the pie.

Other proposed reformist capitalist measures, such as progressive taxation, the development of new technology as a public option, and worker protections still fail to address root causes and core problems. Progressive digital capitalism is better than neoliberalism. But it is nationalist in orientation, cannot prevent digital colonialism, and it retains a commitment to private property, profit, accumulation and growth.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY AND TECH

Other major blindspots for digital reformists are the twin crises of climate change and ecological destruction that imperil life on Earth.

A growing body of evidence shows that the environmental crises cannot be fixed within a capitalist framework predicated on growth, which is not only increasing energy use and resulting carbon emissions but also putting enormous stress on ecological systems.

UNEP estimates emissions must fall by 7.6 percent every year between 2020 and 2030 to meet the goal of keeping temperature increases under 1.5 degrees.Scholarly assessments estimate the sustainable worldwide material extraction limit at about 50 billion tons of resources a year, yet at present, we are extracting100 billion tons a year, largely benefiting the rich and Global North.

Degrowth must be implemented in the immediate future. Slight reforms to capitalism touted by progressives will still destroy the environment. Applying the precautioonary principle, we cannot afford to risk a permanent ecological catastrophe. The tech sector is not a bystander here, but now one of the leading drivers of these trends.

According to a recent report, in 2019, digital technologies — defined as telecommunications networks, data centers, terminals (personal devices) and IoT (internet of things) sensors — contributed 4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and its energy use has increased by 9 percent per year.

And as high as that may seem, it likely understates the use of energy by the digital sector. A 2022 report found that Big Tech giants are not committed to reducing their full value-chain emissions. Companies like Apple claim to be “carbon-neutral” by 2030, but this “currently includes only direct operations, which account for a microscopic 1.5 percent of its carbon footprint.”

In addition to overheating the planet, mining for minerals used in electronics — such as cobalt, nickel and lithium — in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, Argentina and China is often ecologically destructive.

And then there is the pivotal role of digital companies in supporting other forms of unsustainable extraction. Tech giants help corporations explore and exploit new sources of fossil fuels and digitize industrial agriculture. Digital capitalism’s business model revolves around pushing ads to promote mass-consumption, a key driver of the environmental crisis. Meanwhile many of its billionaire executives have a carbon footprint thousands of times higher than average consumers in the Global North.

Digital reformists assume that Big Tech can be decoupled from carbon emissions and resource-overuse and as a result they focus their attention on each corporation’s particular activities and emissions. Yet the notion of “decoupling” growth from material resource use has been challenged by scholars, who note that resource use tracks tightly to GDP growth across history. Researchers recently found that shifting economic activity to services, including knowledge-intensive industries, has limited potential to reduce global environmental impacts due to the increase in levels of household consumption by service workers.

In sum, the limits to growth changes everything. If capitalism is ecologically unsustainable, then digital policies must accommodate this stark and challenging reality.

DIGITAL SOCIALISM AND ITS BUILDING BLOCKS

In a socialist system, property is held in common. The means of production are directly controlled by the workers themselves through worker coops, and production is for use and need rather than exchange, profit and accumulation. The role of the state is contested among socialists, with some arguing that governance and economic production should be as decentralized as possible, while others argue for a greater degree of state planning.

These same principles, strategies and tactics apply to the digital economy. A system of digital socialism would phase out intellectual property, socialize the means of computation, democratize data and digital intelligence and place the development and maintenance of the digital ecosystem into the hands of communities in the public domain.

Many of the building blocks for a socialist digital economy already exist. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and Creative Commons licenses, for example, provide the software and licensing for a socialist mode of production. As James Muldoon notes in Platform Socialism, city projects like DECODE(DEcentralised Citizen-owned Data Ecosystems) provide open source public interest tools for community activities where citizens can access and contribute data, from air pollution levels to online petitions and neighborhood social networks, while retaining control over data shared. Platform coops, such as the Wings food delivery platform in London, provide a prominent workplace model whereby workers organize their labor through open source platforms collectively owned and controlled by the workers themselves. There is also asocialist social media alternative in the Fediverse, a set of social networks that interoperate using shared protocols, that facilitate a decentralization of online social communications.

But these building blocks would need policy change to thrive. Projects like the Fediverse, for example, are not able to integrate with closed systems or compete with the massive concentrated resources of the likes of Facebook. A set of radical policy changes would therefore be needed to force big social media networks to interoperate, decentralize internally, open up their intellectual property (e.g. proprietary software), end forced advertising (advertising people are subjected to in exchange for “free” services), subsidize data hosting so that individuals and communities — not the state or private companies — can own and control the networks and perform content moderation. This would effectively strangle tech giants out of existence.

The socialization of infrastructure would also need to be balanced with robust privacy controls, restrictions on state surveillance and the roll-back of the carceral security state. Currently the state exploits digital technology for themeans of coercion, often in partnership with the private sector. Immigrant populations and people on the move are heavily targeted by a mix of cameras, aircraft, motion sensors, drones, video surveillance and biometrics. Records and sensor data are increasingly centralized by the state into fusion centers and real-time crime centers to surveil, predict and control communities. Marginalized and racialized communities and activists are disproportionately targeted by the high-tech surveillance state. These practices should be banned as activists work to take down and abolish these institutions of organized violence.

THE DIGITAL TECH DEAL

Big Tech corporations, intellectual property and private ownership of the means of computation are deeply embedded into the digital society, and cannot be turned off overnight. Thus, to replace digital capitalism with a socialist model, we need a planned transition to digital socialism.

Environmentalists have proposed new “deals” outlining the transition to a green economy. Reformist proposals like the US Green New Deal and European Green Deal operate within a capitalist framework that retains the harms of capitalism, such as terminal growth, imperialism and structural inequality. In contrast, ecosocialist models, such as the Red Nation’s Red Deal, theCochabamaba Agreement and South Africa’s Climate Justice Charter, offer better alternatives. These proposals acknowledge the limits of growth and incorporate the egalitarian principles need for a just transition to a truly sustainable economy.

However, neither these red nor green deals incorporate plans for the digital ecosystem, despite its central relevance to the modern economy and environmental sustainability. In turn, the digital justice movement has almost entirely ignored degrowth proposals and the need to integrate their assessment of the digital economy into an ecosocialist framework. Environmental justice and digital justice go hand-in-hand, and the two movements must link up to achieve their goals.

To this effect, I propose an ecosocialist Digital Tech Deal which embodies the intersecting values of anti-imperialism, environmental sustainability, social justice for marginalized communities, worker empowerment, democratic control and class abolition. Here are ten principles to guide such a program :

1. Ensure the digital economy falls within social and planetary boundaries

We face a reality that the richest countries in the North have already emitted more of their fair share of the carbon budget — and this is also true of the Big Tech-led digital economy that is disproportionately profiting the richest countries. It is therefore imperative to ensure the digital economy falls withinsocial and planetary boundaries. We would need to establish a scientifically-informed limit on the amount and types of materials that can be used and decisions could be made about which material resources (e.g. biomass, minerals, fossil energy carriers, metal ores) should be devoted to which use (e.g. new buildings, roads, electronics, etc.) in which amounts for which people. Ecological debts could be established which mandate redistributive policies from North to South, rich to poor.

2. Phase out intellectual property

Intellectual property, especially in the form of copyrights and patents, give corporations control over knowledge, culture and the code that determines how apps and services work, allowing them to maximize user engagement, privatize innovation and extract data and rents. Economist Dean Bakerestimates that intellectual property rents cost consumers an additional $1 trillion per year compared to what could be obtained on a “free market” without patents or copyright monopolies. Phasing out intellectual property in favor of a commons-based model of sharing knowledge would reduce prices, widen access to and enhance education for all and function as a form of wealth redistribution and reparations to the Global South.

3. Socialize physical infrastructure

Physical infrastructure such as cloud server farms, wireless cell towers, fiber optic networks and transoceanic submarine cables benefit those who own it. There are initiatives for community-run internet service providers and wireless mesh networks which can help place these services into the hands of communities. Some infrastructure, such as submarine cables, could be maintained by an international consortium that builds and maintains it at cost for the public good rather than profit.

4. Replace private investment of production with public subsidies and production.

Dan Hind’s British Digital Cooperative is perhaps the most detailed proposal for how a socialist model of production could work in the present context. Under the plan, “public sector institutions, including local, regional and national government, will provide venues where citizens and more or less cohesive groups can assemble and secure a claim on the political.” Enhanced by open data, transparent algorithms, open-source software and platforms and enacted through democratic participatory planning, such a transformation would facilitate investment, development and maintenance of the digital ecosystem and broader economy.

While Hind envisions rolling this out as a public option within a single country — competing with the private sector — it could instead provide a preliminary basis for the complete socialization of tech. In addition, it could be expanded to include a global justice framework that provides infrastructure as reparations to the Global South, similar to the way climate justice initiatives pressure rich countries to help the Global South replace fossil fuels with green energy.

5. Decentralize the internet

Socialists have long pushed for decentralizing wealth, power and governance into the hands of workers and communities. Projects like FreedomBox offer free and open source software to power inexpensive personal servers that can collectively host and route data for services like email, calendaring, chat apps, social networking and more. Other projects like Solid allow people to host their data in “pods” they control. App providers, social media networks and other services can then access the data on terms acceptable to users, who retain control over their data. These models could be scaled up to help decentralize the internet on a socialist basis.

6. Socialize the platforms

Internet platforms like Uber, Amazon and Facebook centralize ownership and control as private intermediaries that stand between users of their platforms. Projects like the Fediverse and LibreSocial provide a blueprint for interoperability that could potentially extend beyond social networking. Services that cannot simply interoperate could be socialized and operated at cost for the public good rather than for profit and growth.

7. Socialize digital intelligence and data

Data and the digital intelligence derived from it are a major source of economic wealth and power. Socialization of data would instead embed values and practices of privacy, security, transparency and democratic decision-making in how data is collected, stored and used. It could build on models such as Project DECODE in Barcelona and Amsterdam.

8. Ban forced advertising and platform consumerism

Digital advertising pushes a constant stream of corporate propaganda designed to manipulate the public and stimulate consumption. Many “free” services are powered by ads, further stimulating consumerism precisely at the time that it imperils the planet. Platforms like Google Search and Amazon are built to maximize consumption, ignoring ecological limits. Instead of forced advertising, information about products and services could be hosted in directories and accessed on a voluntary basis.

9. Replace military, police, prisons and national security apparatuses with community-driven safety and security services

Digital technology has increased the power of police, military, prisons and intelligence agencies. Some technologies, such as autonomous weapons, should be banned, as they have no practical use beyond violence. Other AI-driven technologies, that arguably have socially beneficial applications, would need to be tightly regulated, taking a conservative approach to limit their presence in society. Activists pushing to curtail mass state surveillance should join hands with those pushing for abolition of police, prison, national security and militarism, in addition to people targeted by those institutions.

10. End the digital divide

The digital divide typically refers to unequal individual access to digital resources like computer devices and data, but it should also encompass the way digital infrastructure, such as cloud server farms and high-tech research facilities, are owned and dominated by wealthy countries and their corporations. As a form of wealth redistribution, capital could be redistributed through taxation and a process of reparations to subsidize personal devices and internet connectivity to the global poor and to provide infrastructure, such as cloud infrastructure and high-tech research facilities to populations that cannot afford them.

HOW TO MAKE DIGITAL SOCIALISM REALITY

Radical changes are needed, but there is wide gap between what must be done and where we are today. Nevertheless, there are some critical steps we can and must take.

First, it is essential to raise awareness, promote education and exchange ideas within and across communities so together we can co-create a new framework for the digital economy. In order to do this, a clear critique of digital capitalism and colonialism is needed.

Such a change will be difficult to bring about if concentrated knowledge production is left intact. Elite universities, media corporations, think tanks, NGOs and Big Tech researchers in the Global North dominate the conversation and set the agenda around fixing capitalism, limiting and constraining the parameters of that conversation. We need steps to strip their power, such as abolishing the university ranking system, democratizing the classroom and terminating funding from corporations, philanthropists and Big Foundations. Initiatives to decolonize education — such as the recent #FeesMustFall student protest movement in South Africa and Endowment Justice Coalition at Yale University — provide examples of the movements that will be needed.

Second, we need to connect digital justice movements with other social, racial and environmental justice movements. Digital rights activists should be working with environmentalists, abolitionists, food justice advocates, feminists and others. Some of this work is already being done — for example, the #NoTechForIce campaign spearheaded by Mijente, a grassroots migrant-led network, is challenging the supply of technology to police immigration in the United States — but more work is required still, especially in relation to the environment.

Third, we need to ramp up direct action and agitation against Big Tech and the US empire. Sometimes it is hard to mobilize support behind seemingly esoteric topics, such as the opening of a cloud center in the Global South (e.g. inMalaysia) or the imposition of Big Tech software into the schools (e.g. in South Africa). This is especially difficult in the South, where people must prioritize access to food, water, shelter, electricity, health care and jobs. However, successful resistance to developments like Facebook’s Free Basics in India and the construction of Amazon’s headquarters on sacred Indigenous land in Cape Town, South Africa show the possibility and potential of civic opposition.

These activist energies could go further and embrace the tactics of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS), which anti-apartheid activists used to target computer corporations selling equipment to the apartheid government in South Africa. Activists could build a #BigTechBDS movement, this time targeting the existence of giant tech corporations. Boycotts could cancel public sector contracts with tech giants and replace them with socialist People’s Tech solutions. Divestment campaigns could force institutions like universities to divest from the worst tech companies. And activists could pressure states to apply targeted sanctions to US, Chinese and other countries’ tech corporations.

Fourth, we must work to build tech worker cooperatives that can be the building blocks for a new digital socialist economy. There is a movement to unionize Big Tech, which can help protect tech workers along the way. But unionizing Big Tech is like unionizing the East India companies, arms manufacturer Raytheon, Goldman Sachs or Shell — it is not social justice and is likely to deliver only mild reforms. Just as South African anti-apartheid activists rejected the Sullivan Principles — a set of rules and reforms for corporate social responsibility that allowed American companies to keep profits flowing from business in apartheid South Africa — and other mild reforms, in favor of strangling the apartheid system, we should aim to abolish Big Tech and the system of digital capitalism altogether. And this will require building alternatives, engaging with tech workers, not to reform the unreformable, but to help work out a just transition for the industry.

Finally, people from all walks of life should work collaboratively with tech professionals to develop the concrete plan that would make up a Digital Tech Deal. This needs to be taken as seriously as current green “deals” for the environment. With a Digital Tech Deal, some workers — such as those in the advertisement industry — would lose their jobs, so there would have to be a just transition for workers in these industries. Workers, scientists, engineers, sociologists, lawyers, educators, activists and the general public could collectively brainstorm how to make such a transition practical.

Today, progressive capitalism is widely seen as the most practical solution to the rise of Big Tech. Yet these same progressives have failed to acknowledge the structural harms of capitalism, US-led tech colonization and the imperative of degrowth. We cannot burn down the walls of our house to keep ourselves warm. The only practical solution is to do what is necessary to prevent us from destroying our one and only home — and this must integrate the digital economy. Digital socialism, made reality by a Digital Tech Deal, offers the best hope within the short time frame we have for drastic change, but will need to be discussed, debated and built. It is my hope that this article might invite readers and others to build collaboratively in this direction.

     VOIR EN LIGNEDigital Ecosocialism : Breaking the power of Big Tech