Sven Beckert’s book “Capitalism: A Global History” is filled with valuable insights. I was particularly impressed by his analysis of slavery. While it’s well-known that slavery played a crucial role in colonialism and the social and economic structures of the United States after its founding, the extent and depth of the connection between capitalism and slavery challenge Western beliefs in the exceptionalism of its institutions and values. Two key aspects stand out. First, slavery established early models of complete subordination of individuals within a technological regime designed to facilitate capitalist accumulation, notably through the plantation system. Second, even after abolition, many functional equivalents continued to shape human labour in technological environments, ultimately converging in ways that deny the autonomy of individuals. An intriguing example is how debt drives workers into complete subordination under oppressive work regimes, often seen as “civilizing” the lower classes and non-white ethnic groups by compelling them to abandon idleness.
Slavery was integral to the global economic network of capital accumulation, with specific commodities underpinning various labor practices across space, independent of the specific local institutional frameworks of work. The most significant example is sugar, as sugar production served as a model for plantation agriculture functioning like a factory. It became the primary source of high-calorie energy for the industrial proletariat in Europe, coinciding with the rise in tea and coffee consumption—another area where slavery was crucial, along with later functional equivalents, such as indentured labor. Slaves produced sugar, while industrial workers consumed it to survive in the “satanic mills” of capitalism.
Beckert’s book leaves no doubt: the explanations for the “rise of the West” that emphasise institutions and values are in blatant contradiction to the fact that these elements only define the lives of a privileged minority. The majority of people working within the capitalist system were systematically deprived of these advantages. While this insight is not new and was highlighted by classical authors such as Du Bois and Fanon, it gains new significance when considered in the context of the evolution of the technosphere.
The key observation is that slavery and its functional equivalents have been essential elements in the organization of work throughout capitalist technological evolution. At first glance, this may seem counterintuitive. Technological evolution is marked by the relentless rise of labor productivity, prompting the question: why doesn’t it lead to a gradual reduction in the pains of human labor? Marx was correct in identifying the drive for capital accumulation as the underlying cause. Looking at the “golden age” of capitalist growth after World War II, it is interesting to note that despite many improvements in living conditions during the era of welfare and mass consumption, the functional equivalents of slavery—namely the complete loss of autonomy in work within capitalist production—remained as strong as ever. A case in point is the reception of Fordism by the radically innovative car manufacturer Fiat. The engineer Mariani wrote in 1919: “The worker, even though he is the intelligent part of the mechanism, has no personal or individual importance, but a collective one, he can be replaced with the same ease with which one can replace a cog in a machine.” (cited in Beckert, p. 758) Again, these observations are not new; they were widely discussed in the contributions of the Frankfurt School during the 1960s. Today, China’s rapid industrialisation exhibits similar phenomena, albeit in new technological contexts, such as gig workers in the platform economy.
We can question whether the connection between capitalism and the evolution of the technosphere is a necessary one, leading to dystopian views of human destiny. I believe the answer is no. The critical issue is whether productivity increases are funneled into capital accumulation or used to enhance human freedom. As I have argued in various contributions, this requires a radical change in the nature of work. If productivity gains are directed toward funding a universal basic income, people will gain autonomy in choosing between market and non-market modes of work. The rise of AI brings about vast productivity increases, but this could also undermine human autonomy in relation to the technosphere. One reason for this is that the political power of labor will be significantly reduced, which was a crucial factor in fostering improvements in the 20th century, at least in the Global North. Therefore, we must create institutional mechanisms to ensure that technological productivity growth translates into progress for all of humanity. I suggest implementing a “data tax,” similar to fuel taxes, with the proceeds earmarked for universal basic income. Taxation is straightforward to implement at the gigantic data centres built all around the world. Indeed, if we consider the thermodynamics of computing, we can just think of taxing energy throughput, which has the desirable side effect to enforce energy savings.
Without such institutional creativity, slavery and the evolution of the technosphere remain deeply intertwined within capitalist growth mechanisms. It is important to understand “slavery” as divorced from its historical specifics. In abstract terms, slavery involves three key elements: first, the enforcement of labor against people’s will, where violence may manifest in various forms beyond just direct physical force; second, the imposition of work regimes that severely restrict individual autonomy; and third, the erosion of private life, limiting it to what is deemed necessary for the reproduction of the workforce. Universal basic income (UBI) would mark the ultimate stage of human freedom. Interestingly, this can be achieved without completely revolutionizing the economic system, as Marx had envisioned. UBI decouples technological advancement from capitalism, creating a new form of non-capitalist framework. This serves as a counter-movement to what Beckert describes as capitalist enclosures. In this scenario, capitalism would be limited to specific areas of human life, allowing individuals the freedom to engage with it or disengage entirely.
The technosphere, our agency, our planet 