Tech: the way forward

This is the final part in a series of articles by Carl Rowlands, which relates Stuart Holland’s development of an Alternative Economic Strategy in the 1970s to themes addressing technology questions in the 2020s.It seems that Stuart Holland’s work from the mid-1970s, somewhat caricatured in the interim, is becoming especially relevant again. The UK, and Europe more widely, face huge political, economic, social and environmental challenges, many of them resulting from the imbalances and turbulence resulting from the hyper-financialisation of the 1980s and 1990s.

It is extremely difficult to plot a course from where we are, to an economic system which uses planning to drive sectoral-based growth and puts workers’ control as a priority. But it seems more essential than ever. We can draw upon the ideas of Stuart Holland, Robin Murray, Hilary Wainwright and others, to map a path forwards. And we’d have to acknowledge the work of people such as Tony Benn and John McDonnell in assembling these ideas and formulating them in a way that an always-reluctant Labour Party couldn’t ignore, no matter how much it might have wanted to.The fact is, history has borne out many of Holland’s predictions. The huge concentrations and “post-competitive” basis of “mesoeconomic“ corporations, in conjunction with fund-based finance capital, private equity and venture capital, have completely skewed outcomes away from any classical, or even neo-classical, model of microeconomics. Inequalities have resulted in hugely dysfunctional politics, both within and between countries.It is often only the lower-middle class who, as self-employed or as small businesses, operate within a ‘textbook’ microeconomic paradigm. The harshness of this reality, and the brittleness and exposure this creates, is active in forming at least part of the basis of a new far-right bloc, in the UK and across Europe.We desperately need an economic transformation in the interests of wider society, a transformation that really is driven in detail across different realms. This includes tech, and that is the focus here, but obviously, it needs to go beyond just tech. It would need people from within the different realms, perhaps from trade unions, or academia, or perhaps just socialists who understand the central issues in the various spheres, to help drive specific transformations.It’s possible to imagine a fusion of these approaches from the 1970s with more modern, grassroots-based approaches. Trade unions should be recognised in all companies benefiting from public sector procurement and investment, without exception. But where possible, a Community Wealth Building approach should be adopted for all suppliers providing services to government, including the encouragement of worker co-operatives where appropriate. This could also apply to other sectors, where co-operatives in the UK are currently underrepresented, such as agriculture and farming. The dominance of UK food supply by US multinational corporations is rapidly becoming a critical national security issue. Strengthening the integrity of the sector could therefore be said to be of high importance.Secondary co-operatives should also be supported, as a way to bring SMEs out of isolation. New platforms can be developed to support and develop secondary forms of co-operation. In this sense, public-good technology can assist transformations across different spheres.The economy, in general, needs opening up – not in the neoliberal sense, but in order to spread access to resources and influence distribution of knowledge and wealth. The “mesoeconomic” sector, as Stuart Holland described it in The Socialist Challenge in 1975, includes fewer British companies, fewer British workers and is even less subject to competition or regulation than was previously the case. Rerouting money – even some money – away from monopolistic multinational capitalism would have a massive impact on investment in the UK and local economies.There are so many things that could be done, just in the field of technology and science. Similarly to the legislation which already exists in France, government and local authority dependence on Big Tech platforms can be reduced by legislating for them to migrate to secure open source solutions, with additional financial support for the further development of these solutions.A socialist government can also provide places for innovation and competition. Centralised procurement drives huge economies of scale. A revitalised National Enterprise Board, no matter what it is called (or a National Investment Bank) could ask companies to submit competing designs to build resilient, long-lasting hardware across public services – for example, a single “System-on-a-Chip” designed to run open source software, for use as a 10-15 year lifecycle desktop device. The potential for manufacture of ARM-based CPUs in the UK could be examined, with the development of the supply chains which this would entail. This could potentially save many millions in vendor costs.Where it is necessary to support businesses, government economic development should be empowered to do so, while working to transform the outcomes in society’s interests. A socialist government could open competitions for clean, recyclable and low-energy technology to replace and improve existing solutions, with an emphasis on creativity and social responsibility.There could be a strategic focus on seeding and nurturing workable and where possible, more environmentally sustainable tech platforms and vendors, developing co-operation with other European countries and supporting different open-source projects where appropriate. If there were genuine national strategic interests in play, the investment arms of the government would be able to become a stakeholder in companies, with the general aim of moving towards an economy based around care and social support. Where threats to jobs emerge in critical sectors and places, the investment arms of the government could call on companies to create and protect jobs, and provide the money to help them do this, on specific occasions and with specific conditions.It should ensure, if necessary through 100% government-owned companies, that there are fully-native options for a range of security-sensitive software applications – for example, cybersecurity suites which are entirely hosted, end-to-end, within the UK. This would also stimulate growth in the sector.This is also about establishing new platforms for content. Public service broadcasters need methods of transmission which are not owned by its potential usurpers – the big US Tech companies. Public service broadcasting needs its own tech stacks.A new economic strategy could fund new local enterprises which publish, nurture and support local journalism and reporters, encouraging critical and investigative reporting where possible. This could be done in conjunction with civil society organisations and charities.Environmentalism can deliver growth. Government departments, local authorities, NGOs and charities could work together to establish e-waste/white goods recycling, reclamation and upcycling facilities in every town and city, which offer work placements and retraining possibilities for long-term unemployed people.Nothing could be a more fitting metaphor for a tech industry which is being forced, finally, to tidy up after itself. None of these suggestions are utopian or unrealistic. All of them have a basis in reality. These are only initial steps towards a society which thinks of economics in terms of design.

Carl Rowlands works as a learning resource creator, teacher and writer. He is based in central Europe and the UK. The previous four articles can be found on Labour Hub here and here and here and here.