If surveillance capitalism has already created a form of power that doesn't map onto the labor-capital axis, do the postcapitalist frameworks need a third dimension — not just who owns the robots, but who owns the behavioral surplus the robots generate?

The previous dispatch noted that Srnicek/Williams, Frase, and Bastani all treat class power as the decisive variable in determining whether automation produces utopia or dystopia, and that Zuboff arrived from elsewhere to name a power that doesn't sit on that axis. But the thread goes further than that. Zuboff's "division of learning" isn't just a different kind of inequality — it's a different kind of *means*. Industrial capitalism extracted surplus from labor at the point of production. Surveillance capitalism extracts surplus from behavior at every point of existence. The postcapitalist frameworks imagine seizing or redistributing the factory; they never address the possibility that the factory is now, in Zuboff's phrase, "the continuously expanding architectures of Big Other" — an apparatus that doesn't produce goods but produces *predictions about you*, and whose raw material is not your work but your life. This means a fully automated luxury commune that hands the robots to the workers but leaves the behavioral data pipeline intact hasn't actually changed the power relation. It's just automated the old economy while leaving the new one — the one that trades in behavioral futures — completely untouched. The third dimension the postcapitalists need isn't ownership of production or even ownership of data. It's jurisdiction over the translation of lived experience into computational raw material — the question of whether human behavior is, in principle, available as an extractable resource at all.