Между диалектическим и аналитическим подходами в марксизме
The article offers a critical approach to the current discussion on the increasing of spare time and the reducing of the amount of labor in the digital economy. A common place in the discussion about the development of modern capitalism, characterized mainly by automatisation and robotization of jobs, was the hypothesis of reducing the employment of workers. Based on this assumption, many social theorists have postulated the problem of "spare time", which in the future will be too extent. This will lead to a number of problems, including unemployment and the sense of uselessness of a person. The author calls into question this forecast, referring to the consideration of relevant phenomena for the modern social theory - "digital labor" and "digital professions". The article also offers a new view on the relationship between the post-industrial digital economy and the world of medi. Based on the Marxist analysis of the cultural logic of late capitalism, the article puts forward the thesis that the untapped media world, which culturally mediates capitalism, removes the contradiction between production and consumption. Cultural production is fundamentally not reducable to full automation, since its very structure includes consumption. As a result, free time imperceptibly also becomes productive work for a person.
After postmodernism’s key theorists abandoned the topic (Fredric Jameson) or even allowed that postmodernism is no longer exists (Linda Hutcheon), various concepts under the umbrella term “post-postmodernism” have begun to emerge since 2000. One of the last intellectual alternatives to post-modernism was the metamodernism proposed by two Europeans, Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker. In 2010 they published a kind of manifesto entitled Notes on Metamodernism in which they argued that there had been a pivot away from cynicism and irony toward sincerity and romance in the newly emerging culture. This pivot heralds the arrival of the new era of metаmodernism. The author of the article critically evaluates the manifesto and concludes that the concept of metamodernism does not stand up to scrutiny and has little of substance to offer. The metamodernism manifesto is at best a set of declarations. However, this does not mean that the metamodernists had not intuitively hit upon the key to cultural and social tendencies that are still not completely clear. At the end of 2017 a new collection of articles edited by Vermeulen and van den Akker was published. Even though the authors of the metamodernism concept had almost nothing new to offer and failed to develop their ideas any further, other researchers and thinkers with different theoretical orientations from the original authors have taken up the metamodernism impulse and made it qualitatively more interesting. The metаmodernism project has been developed with greater sophistication by theorists and also through empirical research. Metamodernism has been vindicated by the new life it has been given.
In the past twenty years, all the key authors who wrote about the state of postmodernity either began to be engaged in other research areas (Fredric Jameson) or declared that the postmodernism is dead (Linda Hutcheon). Since 2000, when the fatigue from the postmodernism became evident to everyone, various researchers, critics and theorists began to offer their concepts of our era. However, all these theories, emphasizing the change of cultural paradigms, interpret culture traditionally not paying attention to total digitalization and the introduction of new technologies into our lives. However, in two concepts of our time these processes become central. These are the concepts of the digimodern and automodern. The focus of this article is the idea of automodernism, proposed by the American social theorist Robert Samuels in 2007/2009. He believes that our world is characterized by two contradictory tendencies – automation and the desire for autonomy (personal freedom). From his point of view, the former often does not allow to reach the latter due to certain circumstances. Samuels, using the example of a car, a personal computer, the Internet, etc., shows what exactly our culture is in the broadest sense. Analyzing the concept of “digital youth,” he also pays attention to the formation of a new subjectivity of the era of automodernity. Finally, the most interesting part of the concept of automodernism, which is most relevant today, is the criticism of leftwing social and philosophical concepts (Slavoj Žižek, Jameson) and cultural theories (Henry Jenkins). At the end of the article, the author mentions Adam Greenfield’s latest book Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. Thanks to this book, Samuels’ theory can be verified.