While a broad swath of the public that’s aware of the existence of transhumanism probably associates the quest for posthuman enhancements with libertarian pro-free market ideology, the politics of its advocates have always been diverse. Luis Arroyo came to my attention via a facebook group called Left Transhumanism.
He is the founder of Left Transhumanism and Vice Chairman of the New York Transhumanist Party. I will confess I cringed a little at the Soviet and particularly the Mao references, albeit it’s all very much in context—this sets the stage for a conversation that follows.
Read on.
RU Sirius: In the facebook Left Transhumanism group you posted that “fully automated luxury communism is the goal.” I’ve been interested in visions and plans for post scarcity since I read the book Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin back in the 1960s. Also at that time, groups like the Yippies and the Diggers were talking “let the machines do it”. They were hoping to induce rebellious youths to push for the end of wage slavery. Bookchin’s vision was relatively low tech and bucolic. Luxury communism is something different. The perhaps banal question that haunts these kinds of discussions is whether this is possible. Is it? And are you thinking of it in terms of present technology or potentials over the horizon?
Luis Arroyo: I hold that Transhumanism is already here and thus the possibility of it happening is not a concern. Rather, since Transhumanism is already here, the important question seems to be one of who will have major influence. Therefore I am thinking in terms of both present technology as well as technologies over the horizon. If I need to clarify anything please let me know.
RU: Ok but are we in a situation where the end of scarcity is available on a global scale—as well as universal “luxury”—or is it currently plausible at least in the US? Or, in your opinion, is that a project we could be striving for? What would you point towards as evidence for your view?
LA: In terms of the "end of scarcity", I'd say on a global scale, it is not yet achievable in all aspects of life. It may be achievable with certain resources in particular nations, but globally, taking into consideration all resources, there is still scarcity.
Now is there enough food to feed the global human population, yes; is there enough clothes and shoes for the global human population, yes. In the respective industries of food production and the production of clothing (fast fashion) they produce more than humanity needs globally. It's the profit methods of distribution (i.e. market economies) along with things like war, climate change, etc. that are hindering sweeping hunger, for example, into the dustbin of history.
In other aspects of life in particular places scarcity is not an issue. For example in the US in terms of housing units when compared to the number of homeless individuals— there are more vacant housing units than there are homeless people. However due to private property laws people sleep outside of empty homes or apartments.
Where scarcity is still an issue either due to productive capabilities or due to laws that prevent wide distribution, these issues should be handled and moved past. In pro tech spaces there is much talk of "abundance" and how that will lead to a new world, but as I see it in the examples given where abundance is present there is no egalitarianism distribution because the social relations, how the means of production are used, who it benefits, how the proceeds are distributed, etc, remains unchanged.
RU: The transhumanist movement has long had a diversity of political voices, albeit there are strong tendencies towards libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism and in more recent history, darker currents towards alt-right and the dark enlightenment. James Hughes, who calls himself a socialist, often came to the surface over the years as someone representing a left progressive view. What is luxury communism bringing to the party?
LR: For what it's worth, James Hughes is a "member" or "participant" in Left Wing Transhumanism on Facebook, so there is some overlap broadly speaking. That being said, FALC (Fully Automated Luxury Communism) offers more than just the market reforms or safety nets suggested by our Techno-Progressive counterparts. FALC does not seek to create a society that functions within the market economy, rather, it aims to create a society that can advance beyond the market economy through the approach of abundance, rendering market distribution obsolete.
That in of itself may allow for a few things [what Left Transhumanism brings to the table]:
* Left-wing transhumanism offers a positive yet critical outlook on AI and automation, especially when considering the general stance of others in left-wing circles, who are either ignoring AI or straight up discouraging its use while highlighting its damaging effects on the environment. In my view, the circles and groups within the "left" that analyze this impending industry—with all its consequences and changes—in a positive light are few in number.
* Our form of Transhumanism (Left Wing) enables people to once again uptake revolutionary optimism in the fullest sense. As was the case in the early USSR, revolving around the idea, notion, or attitude that great feats were possible through collective human action. For example, one of Left Transhumanism's ideological and historical figures by the name of Maxim Gorky in the opening speech at the First Congress of Soviet Writers urged fellow writers to depict the miracles taking place "in the land illuminated by Lenin's genius, in the land where Joseph Stalin's iron will work tirelessly and miraculously while in China, under another Left Transhumanist figure, Mao Zedong, opened a special school aimed at combating deafness in children through the use of Chinese medicine, specifically acupuncture. According to PLA medical orderly Chao Pu-yu "In fact, people had never heard of a deaf-mute who could speak or sing. But in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution this actually happened -- just like many other things which had hitherto been considered out of the question -- when People's Liberation Army medical orderly Chao Pu-yu and his comrades succeeded in enabling deaf-mutes to speak, and thus opened up this "forbidden zone" in medical science..."
These two examples and many more like them show the optimistic potential that any pro-tech movement/group needs, especially if they are pairing it with forms of egalitarianism.
RU: Do you view luxury communism as something to be brought into being by a sort-of highly centralized Leninist vanguard party or by something less authoritarian and less likely to veer off into some kind of Stalinism?
LA: Left-wing transhumanism offers a different approach to Socialism in that it avoids notions of "Stalinism" or broader authoritarianism by means of decentralization in a technological sense. For example, the OGAS program was proposed as a way to overcome issues in centralized human driven economic planning. Within those issues, economic control and a lack of general information to the public was an issue that we Left Wing Transhumanists believe can be overcome via today's level of technology.
Another example of this type of system is Salvador Allende's Project Cybersyn, or the cybernetic systems of the GDR and Yugoslavia. This is not to say there are no Marxist Leninists or Maoists or authoritarians in Left Transhumanism; however, on average, you'll find an increase in proposed ideas incorporating technology, thus removing the possibility of corruption/control by taking the human out of the equation/position. This "approach to Socialism" response, in my opinion, goes for both Left Transhumanism and FALC!
RU: To the extent that politically and culturally aware people know about transhumanism and its goals and ambitions, they would tend to view it in the context of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and even the far out and extreme discourse around “TESCREAL” AI singularities and the like. There's a certain attention grabbing aspect to these visions and in the reactions against them. How do you think left transhumanist ideas might get more of a share of the discourse?
LA: By meeting those obstacles with our version of the future. The potential of technology is on display with very negative results, be it in the implementation of AI or robotics in the workplace, greater surveillance, etc. However, there is also the potential for these technologies to aid, help, or liberate people. Take Automation, for example, the lack of a pro-tech left when it comes to those who engage with worker unions or people in general has let Capitalists and Pro-Capitalist governments frame the whole ordeal as "worker vs machine", "worker vs AI", or "laborer vs technology" with no challenging narratives or actions other than Luddism.
If a pro-tech left had a chance to write the narrative, the workers, through collective action & maybe even union action, could get something akin to a "Pension system" funded by the proceeds generated by AI and distributed to the former human workers. Or propose the idea that, without a labor market to participate in, people will have no means to generate the income needed to survive. Therefore, the proceeds of their former workplaces must be distributed accordingly, sparking ideas of a "post-capitalist" society and world.
Left Transhumanism can take its place in general discourse by framing itself as the "Pro-Tech" Left that seems to be needed in many areas, given the recent rapid advancement of technology.