UBERIZATION. A struggle for power and control in the neoliberal paradise

Abstract

Tout est permis, mais rien n'est possible." Michel Clouscard The last years brought a real economic revolution, industrial some may say, even cultural, I would say. It's platform economy, which some call collaborative economics or uberization, in the simplest way. The new reality of the transition to digital society brings confusion in many areas, in our lifestyle, in the economy of services to the population, in the field of legislation or even in national security for some areas. The consequences are quite important and cannot be disregarded, but most strongly this new form of economy, but also of social network, affects the state and public policies, but also the economic system. Beyond the diversity of the phenomenon, not only states, but also some professional communities protest or try to ban certain activities. It is true that new industries such as the digital one and mass marketing have become generalized over the past two decades, and the exodus of digital activities is likely to lead to a massive loss of jobs, and the state, which has accomplished only a few e-government activities, could be challenged to respond to these situations.

Full text

E D I T O R I A L
UBERIZATION. A struggle for
power and control
in the neoliberal paradise
Tout est permis,
mais rien n’est possible.”
Michel Clouscard
The last years brought a real economic revolution, industrial some may say, even cultural,
I would say. It’s platform economy, which some call collaborative economics or
uberization, in the simplest way. The new reality of the transition to digital society brings
confusion in many areas, in our lifestyle, in the economy of services to the population, in
the field of legislation or even in national security for some areas.
The consequences are quite important and cannot be disregarded, but most strongly this new
form of economy, but also of social network, affects the state and public policies, but also the
economic system. Beyond the diversity of the phenomenon, not only states, but also some
professional communities protest or try to ban certain activities. It is true that new industries
such as the digital one and mass marketing have become generalized over the past two decades,
and the exodus of digital activities is likely to lead to a massive loss of jobs, and the state,
which has accomplished only a few e-government activities, could be challenged to respond to
these situations.

In the neoliberal paradise of today’s world, there has been a problem for the state, but also for
the social order based on the philosophy of the market.
The State
The state has at least a few important challenges, one of which is the integration of the whole
digital phenomenon into the social system and this cannot be done very simply or without
conflict. Another would be the possibility of trying to convert the entire state apparatus, heavy-
handed and bureaucratic, to the new digital revolution. Finally, with or without the digital aspect,
but especially with, the state should think of a major increase in the quality of public services,
such as speed, suitability and many other features where it is increasingly outdated in
comparison with the fields of technology. There is a need for the state to quickly reorient itself
because all research shows that the public system has lost much of the confidence and even the
perception that everything that makes the system of public policies and services still has a public
vocation. If the ambulance and firefighters are perceived as heroes of sacrifice for others, or
there are thousands of competent and dedicated officials in the local administration, the system is
piloted and thought through centralized and centralizing formulas, in the capitals, where
decisions are inadequate to reality in more and more cases. Assessing the quality of public
service cannot be done efficiently because the grids include abstract indicators or do not bring
together the cost elements of people’s contentment.
In order to fully change the quality of public service, in the light of new challenges and
competition, the state should promote a more flexible, more task-based and less obsessive role-
playing, with more autonomy for the civil servant and less centered on hierarchism.
A hyper-centralized state such as the Romanian state should move to a kind of platform state,
so that it can compete or integrate the new forms of digitization in the other areas of society. The
danger that the bureaucrats are still claiming is that the state may lose its sovereignty, the
pyramid organization being a sort of guarantee of hierarchical control, in other words: how could
we create the network so it would not disturb the pyramid.
In Europe, this courageous approach is only applied by a single state, Estonia, which has
decisively progressed in this way.
The economy

In the economy, the new reality places what is called the collaborative economy into a
relevant and worrying dynamics for many non-digital industries or for those who use massive
mediation. Even if the principle is not new, the collaborative economy makes a translation from
the economy based on ownership, to the economy that shares assets, where consumers can also
be co-producers, to an economy that values demand that is honored in record time through a
digital platform communication.
Some say it is economy without enterprise, but the assertion is largely uncovered, but the
platforms are nonetheless still a hybrid between traditional firms and the market. The fact is that
the new economy reduces transaction costs and increases the fluidity of the exchange, it can be
even based on participatory financing, if we are talking about financial services.
Even if the states are complaining that they do not control the way they want it, the platform
economy also produces a number of positive effects: more innovation, efficiency - because the
consumer interacts continuously with the “manufacturer”, there may even be an inclusion effect
through a more rapid generalization of services, even greater market dynamism.
With regard to social effects, the intense debate over the last few years shows some
ambivalence of effects.
Among the possible positive effects, most studies focus on: the possibility of wage surpluses,
increasing work autonomy, the opportunity to gain time for family and social life, flexibility, the
inclusion of people with certain disabilities and others. If we think of the negative effects, we
relate, first of all, to the unemployment spectrum, social isolation, income volatility, labor
insecurity, diminishing the role of trade unions in the possibility of collective bargaining for
different rights. In many recent critical studies, the dehumanization of work on platforms is
mentioned among the negative effects, or the fact that uberization is not a collaborative economy
in all its aspects, collaborating only in some rare cases where the platform economy is not profit-
oriented.
What about uber-politics?
Politics is increasingly being affected by this fundamental change, but the most important
leaders of our day do not accept that their action and organization are not the best and the most
current in the world. A new politics made its way, discreetly, but with paralyzing effect on the

traditional system. Uberization of politics is looking to bring a new relationship between those
who govern and those who are governed, for the time being only in terms of speech.
We cannot analyze at this moment how much manipulation, demagogy or populism is, but
soon we’ll see. People are still shocked by the election of Trump or Macron as head of states, or
the recent victories of the activist in Slovakia or the actor in Ukraine. Hard to understand for
those who cannot accept that politics regarded as a relationship of representation is unsuccessful.
But it’s more and more real that we are moving quite suddenly, without many warnings, from
representativeness to participation. At least in the speech of the new politicians and in the
probably stimulated demands of the electorate there is increasingly the idea of citizens’
participation in governance, more flexible governments with more participation in decisions and
constant information, more transparency, public policy evaluation before being finally
promulgated or by the allocation of amounts in local budgets following public consultations or
project competitions of civic associations.
The parties that will remain locked in their headquarters will suffer much in the future. Still,
political parties are abusing of the monopoly position, especially those of parliament. They set
high thresholds for new parties, while old parties are funded from the state budget and thus
create inequality of chances, ownership of premises is transmitted to the center to prevent any
nonconformities or deviance from local teams. The principle of who has the stamp and the office
is the master has become an argument that will no longer have any relevance in the future.
What USR does in Romania is the beginning of an era, though not the most typical sign of a
new era, but the lack of respect for parliamentary rules and norms, or even the violence of
language and majority action on social networks, are signs of a beginning. Still, the mainstream
political parties did not understand that they would not survive this digital tsunami just by
blogging and making small adjustments in terms of public display, or paying an army of online
scribblers to declare war to other scribblers from other parties.
When Liviu Dragnea said: “You are NOTHING” to a citizen who had blamed him for
something in a consensual environment, inside the party, he did not realize that he could
endanger future speeches or crowd baths. At that moment, he did not realize the new rule of
participation: Regardless of where it takes place, even at a PSD rally, those without power have
the right to speak, be it a decent reply, or a great affront, as was the message of a Romanian

driver in Sweden, a response that became viral and made the most important people in the state
adopt it as a sign of a political position, even if there was no political message and no opposition,
it was just a vulgarity worthy of a football gallery.
Macron, the President of France, won the elections without offices and thousands of militants,
with only a little personal talent, with a strong counter-strike message and a small motivated
back team, a sort of little tribe, cohesive and determined.
In Romania, the USR Campaign “Without criminals in public functions” was a message of
strong anticonstitutional character, since anyone has the right to the presumption of innocence,
and the term criminal did not include only those convicted, but also those that were accused and
investigated for alleged criminal offenses. But beyond this, the USR message was well-
assimilated by the social corpus, and it grew in the launching platform through which this new
party managed to enter the narrow circle of parliamentary parties but also with good prospects of
winning voters from the major cities of Romania.
Now, when party elections kill internal democracy and their possible renewal, and internal
struggles kill even election-wounded leaders, co-production of the political and governance
program is a safer recipe, even if analysts can show that it is just an ornament, a simulation of
public participation. As it is, people have the feeling that they are involved, that they are
integrated into the process, and, above all, taken into account.
Even the PSD
It is strange that the most successful campaign for the PSD, the one for parliamentary
elections of 2016, has used a mechanism from this new trend of uberization, the removal of too
many intermediaries and was not based on the fact that the party represents them, but that that
the leader communicated directly with them, gave them figures, trends, dynamics, solutions.
Alone with his plate sheet, in television studios, Dragnea wrote with his own hand measures and
figures, the viewers stood as students in classrooms and listened attentively. When the show
ended, they had the feeling that they were initiated, that they had participated with the PSD
leader at the act of making a government program, they knew more than others, they had the
feeling that they could tell the others about their findings. It was an austere communication
formula, but it brought a big electoral surprise: almost 50% of the votes. But after the elections,

Liviu Dragnea and PSD left this logic of bringing the audience into the “decision room” and lost
the emotional bond with the electorate.
A crisis of representation
This tendency of uberization is also accentuated by a crisis of representation that has lasted for
decades in Europe, and in our country it is linked to a great disappointment with the dreams of
the fall of communism. People no longer trust politicians, they no longer feel represented, and
they believe that party interests are stronger than common interests and values. In addition,
election campaigns are animated by Nihilist critics, considered to be constructively flawless, the
“political class” being rated with only 7% confidence, which is a counter-performance at
national level. In the general concert of mutual accusations of corruption, the electorate records
the result of these arguments considered unnecessary: the lack of highways and the lack of
economic efficiency are entirely due to them.
If we look at the ideological basis of the new political wave and the internet as a progressive
value, we see that it is a neo-liberal ideology centered on the individual’s belonging to a
community-network, but not necessarily a national community, where the state is the dominant
actor. Neither the ideologies of the right nor of the left are adapted to this new wave. The left is
just a shadow of the old ideals of solidarity and equity, and the right is stuck in market ideology
and the role of competition in eliminating monopolies, even if monopolies are just a product of
the evolution of the free market. Both wings of the political machine are washed-out by the
failure of a common belief, the belief in freedom of expression and transparency, defeated and
humiliated by a reality with which the new wave has succeeded well enough to achieve results:
misinformation, fake-news and a post- truth.
The Twitter-party is increasingly the model of aggregation, where the short phrase and
pictures from Instagram provide a flow of emotions and feelings that replace the political
projects of the past. A minimalist politics comes over us and we have not understood the trend
quite well, some think of it that it was just an accident from foreign countries.
Uberization is an easy process
Uberization is near because it is easy, it does not have political programs and heavy teams of
experts or academics, it is often reduced to emotion. When a young woman from PLUS talked

about the need for communion, for life in common, after the model of a postmodern tribe who is
paradisiacally living an emotion of solidarity, many laughed or were sniffy about it, but did not
understand that this is one of the possible images of the future of politics.
Sure, what the new uber-politicians don’t know is that this is the way to conquer power, but
power cannot last long without projects and values, because the effect of emotions goes very
fast. The decades of disappointment towards the political elite are revived whenever the one in
power cannot satisfy the big projects left in oblivion, and this cannot be done through emotion.
Emotion brings you to power, but post-election emotional depression can throw you away much
faster than you expect from the saddle of power.
It is true that a new social ecosystem is born where digital platforms can bring more social
trust, with influence in politics too. The network-politics hosted by platforms has succeeded due
to people’s mistrust in the traditional way of representation embraced by political parties and the
people who are being trained by them, and also because it met the aspiration for collaboration
and participation of people in the projects on which their economic and social life depends.
A founding illusion
Everything is based on the foundation of an illusion, that networks are neutral, especially
international, and they, the individuals, will gain more autonomy. In fact, however, it may be a
new servitude, a voluntary one, as a classic of the Renaissance said, but perhaps more dangerous.
Another component of illusion is that the state is losing power, so the individual would seem
logical to be in gain. It is not certain, however, because these global platforms are not aimed at
emancipation but profit or even dominance if we think that most of them come from countries
that are also in the position of the guardians of the galaxy. At first glance, as more and more is
being discussed in Brussels, states lose the important function of certifying the quality or the
adequacy of quality services and the exchange is free.
It’s not always the case and the latest massive scandals (Cambridge Analytica is just one
example) show that absolute liberalization of trade can produce many perverse effects.
What can the state do in this case? Wise would be to create public platforms to compensate for
the private ones or to try to balance some deviations brought by the uberization.

In more and more situations it can be demonstrated that the topic of public participation is
more demagogy, it is rather a simulation of an artificial consensus. We can see that democracy is
based precisely on dissensus and confrontation, on the conflict between visions and programs,
for the birth and acceptance of diversity in political and social solutions. A society of
participation and consensus could inhibit competition and kill political participation,
representation of minorities and the emergence of new trends? Don’t you think that the idyllic
image of participation could create majorities without opponents? Could political participation
cancel hundreds of years of fighting in public space? Participation is a form of pacification that
will neutralize the critical spirit and the energy of the opposition to oligarchic solutions, but
socially negotiated through various mechanisms more or less transparent to harmonize the
interests of large groups and social aggregations? These are legitimate questions and serious
concerns.
Missionarism and surveillance
Through the subjacent ideology of the networks, are we reaching the “realization” of some
known dystopias we owe to George Orwell or A. Huxley?
It is possible to almost completely observe the individual and the masses, by programming
behaviors and reactions, modifying information flows or generating public flows of emotions
that those connected to the increasingly invasive platforms could not resist.
Indeed, platform politics and economy can underpin a new Messianism, based on the
simplistic logic of machinery, on the construction of a rationally governed society by association
with machine-type thinking. In other words, managing things can be extended to people’s
governance. States seem increasingly powerless to multinationals who preach these mechanisms,
and individuals give up everything, including free will, in front of these technologies that
fascinate them and connect them even biologically, some talking about this trend as a
neurocapitalism.
Individuals think they will be able to fight individually against manipulation and submission
to a logic of the system, but that will only be an illusion. In history only collective struggle has
been able to make great changes. Network resistance is just an illusion, networks are controlled

and controllable from network knots, blocking gestures on Facebook for minor offending
polemics is a gentle yet eloquent proof.
It is true that it is not easy to get rid of the fascination of internet myths that say in summary
that they offer freedom, free and emancipation. It is also true that the internet and technology
eliminates some of the market economy slots or state slippages in providing services of public
interest but promises more altruism and solidarity, a political promise on which also the uber-
politics relies. Neither the promise of strengthening social ties is fully supported as it can be
easily demonstrated that it is only an unprecedented multiplication of weak links.
And yet, how do we relate to uberization?
Not by rejecting or banning processes or activities because we have to appreciate that this new
wave is shaking the context and it’s creating premises for a strategic change. Uberization is a
reaction to state immobility and indecent market monopolies that are no longer a mechanism of
fair competition and free trade.
If we do not understand the process, there will be a change as a disruptive process, with the
consequences of a profound crisis on the whole way of life or societal management. Perhaps the
rejection of vertical structures could create the foundation for a horizontal restructuring of
society that will bring a new energy of mobilization and living creativity, both of which are
necessary for the reconstruction of societies in multiple crises. Shakespeare said: “What cannot
be avoided must be embraced”, and this seems like a valid excuse for those who are scared of
this digitization tsunami.
For now we are somewhere in the middle of the road, where Michel Clouscard’s phrase is
valid: “Everything is allowed, but nothing is possible”.
http://revistasinteza.ro/uberizarea-o-lupta-pentru-putere-si-control-in-paradisul-neoliberal/