The world stands on the brink of a significant digital transformation. Mirroring past industrial revolutions, today's digital changes signify a substantial shift in production methods, the essence of work, and societal structures.

This ongoing transformation reinterprets the value of human labor. For the first time, intellect will be pitted against machines, altering human roles as economic contributors and fundamentally reshaping society.

The rise of non-organic labor, like artificial intelligence, compels humans to compete in a labor market that may not require traditional labor anymore. What will happen to societies, governments, and civilizations when this digital revolution fully unfolds?

History indicates that humanity has faced similar challenges before. In the Middle Ages, prior to capitalism's rise, society revolved around small manorial estates where serfs worked under the direction of lords. Although these laborers didn't own the land, they had access to communal plots for personal use, allowing them to produce surpluses beyond their obligations.

This communal access underwent privatization through a process known as enclosure, which dismantled the land available to peasants. This shift marked a significant transition in labor dynamics, leading serfs to sell their labor instead of being bound to their lords. Coupled with events like the Black Death, this altered the demand for labor, setting the stage for the urban industrial economic system we recognize today.

This article will explore the ramifications of enclosure and draw lessons pertinent to our time. It will illustrate that without ownership or even access to production means, individuals struggle to sustain themselves, ultimately becoming dependent on employers or state support.

With the introduction of artificial intelligence, a considerable portion of cognitive labor will become unnecessary. Just as disheartened farmers searched for work in the Middle Ages, today’s knowledge workers may face similar fates. This will require the development of a new economic framework that departs from traditional ownership concepts and labor allocation.

Enclosure represented the privatization of communal lands. Deprived of the ability to cultivate their own food, peasants were compelled to sell their labor to survive.

Medieval Europe's economy was feudalistic, where serfs toiled on noble estates. Although land ownership was private, manors included parcels for individual peasant use. This arrangement began to change in the 12th century with the onset of communal land privatization.

Enclosure unfolded over several centuries. E.K. Hunt and Mark Lautzenheiser note in History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective:

> “The enclosure movement reached its peak in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when in some areas as many as three-fourths to nine-tenths of the tenants were forced out of the countryside and into the cities to try to support themselves.” (Hunt and Lautzenheiser, 17)

The significance of the enclosure movement lies not in its causes but its consequences. Without common land to farm, peasants lost their means of production. The economic pressures from the Black Death and the Hundred Years' War rendered feudalism increasingly untenable, leading to widespread impoverishment among serfs.

Robert Heilbroner writes in The Worldly Philosophers:

> “Deprived of the right to use the common land, [the peasant] could no longer maintain himself as a ‘farmer’... Instead, he became the most miserable of social classes, an agricultural proletarian, and where agricultural work was lacking, a beggar, sometimes a robber, usually a pauper.” (Heilbroner, 32)

At this time, Europe was structured around monarchies rather than recognized nation-states, with the Catholic Church serving as a de facto government and primary provider for the agricultural poor, laying the groundwork for the modern welfare state.

Moreover, enclosure gradually undermined the social bonds that united communities. Feudal society lacked formal legal systems, relying instead on the customs and traditions of individual manors.

Land was vital not only for sustenance but also for maintaining social customs and roles:

> “The social hierarchy [of Medieval Europe] was based on individuals’ ties to the land, and the entire social system rested on an agricultural base.” (Hunt and Lautzenheiser, 10)

As enclosure progressed, the customs governing labor diminished, severing peasants' connections to the land and diminishing their social standing.

By the 1500s, a distinct working class emerged, separate from its agrarian forerunners. Lacking land, peasants could only sell their labor, which:

> “Creat[ed] a working class that was systematically stripped of any control over the production process and forced into a situation in which the sale of its labor power was its only means of survival.” (Hunt and Lautzenheiser, 17)

Centuries of privatization resulted in a labor market where individuals had to sell their labor for survival. This concept of a market became central to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which laid the foundation for contemporary capitalism.

While the surplus labor supply wasn't the sole factor in developing a market-based economic system, it played a significant role. Without it, revolts among peasants destabilized Medieval Europe.

Today's market-oriented system arose from the necessity to employ people. As AI threatens to replace billions of workers globally, a new economic structure must emerge.

The decline of feudalism and the privatization of communal lands generated a surplus of unemployed workers, necessitating a new economic framework to create value and ensure that these workers could benefit from it.

This new system, capitalism, was characterized by markets that exchanged value. Human labor became essential for producing excess goods—first agricultural, then industrial—that could be sold. Trade in these goods contributed to the national wealth of newly formed countries and shaped their status in the developing international arena.

Capitalism redefined economic value and its organization. Heilbroner asserts:

> “Labor, not nature, was the source of ‘value’ that was one of Smith’s greatest insights.” (Heilbroner, 49)

Though capitalism allows individuals to own means of production, it primarily benefits those who already possess assets for production—farms, factories, or tools—leaving individual workers at a disadvantage:

> “The typical worker enters the market owning or controlling only one thing—the capacity to work, that is, his or her labor power.” (Hunt and Lautzenheiser, 6)

As we transition into an era of automation and artificial intelligence, this creates a new dilemma. The demand for manual labor has diminished for years, leading more workers to seek cognitive positions. However, with AI encroaching on cognitive tasks, humans may find little left to offer.

Adding complexity is the role of consumerism in shaping today's societal structures. While historical status was linked to land ownership, contemporary status hinges on possessions acquired through labor-derived value. Material wealth and possessions signal social standing, or at least the appearance of it.

The rise of consumerism as a guiding societal principle was intentional, designed to maintain worker productivity:

> “The new philosophy brought with it a new social problem: how to keep the poor poor… unless the poor were poor, they could not be counted upon to do an honest day’s toil without asking for exorbitant wages.” (Heilbroner, 40)

As the need for human labor diminishes, so will workers' ability to uphold their social class appearances. Just as the social order eroded in Medieval Europe, a similar disintegration can be anticipated in today's society.

The history of enclosure and the rise of AI suggest a new system must be established, akin to how Adam Smith introduced capitalism in the 18th century. This new framework will need to define economic participation principles and the social order that binds the economy. Without these elements, production may stall, threatening the sustainability of civilization.