Chapters
@
the problem
@
the cause
@
the decline
@
the awakening
@
the Perfect Societies [iDemocracy]
-
geolocation human tracking system
-
transferring monetary units in “digital wallets”
-
personalised parameterisation of the weight of the electoral vote (electoral
set up)
@”iCommunism”
[innovative digital re-establishment of Marxist Theory with smart systems for
the Central Control of the Economy and the regulation of financial transactions
with a strictly defined relations between production and consumption]
-
“iNeoliberalism” and “iΚeynesianism”, as an auxiliary Setup for the Economy
which operates on an “iCommunism” platform
Having
a good sense of short-term foresight on the theoretical approach to the better
organisation and functioning of societies, both then [1] and now, I have spent
a considerable amount of time thinking. I
read a lot and contemplated deeply. To find out exactly where the problem lies,
what the cause is and in which direction potential solutions should be targeted
in order to address the accumulated problems which stem from the improper
functioning of today’s collapsing capitalism, and in conjunction with the
democratic deficit which is produced in times of crisis.
@
the problem
Peoples
in almost the entire world have experienced of the total collapse of
capitalism, both in its mild version as the Liberalism of Adam Smith’s
Classical School and in its extreme form as the neoliberalism of Milton
Friedman’s famous Chicago School. The economic crisis which struck Greece at
the end of 2008, and the country subsequent becoming subject to a regime of
international economic surveillance which introduced the doctrine of
neoliberalism in its most stringent form into Greek society, not only killed
Greece's economy, but also mortally wounded Democracy. The torpedoing of the
economy and its violent sinking into the muddy mire of eternal debt, also swept
away the democratic structures and functions of the State. This, of course,
does not negate the fact that a high level of legal culture had been created in
Greece in the meantime, something which is a precondition for any democratic
state of law such as the Greek state before the country was placed under a
regime of international economic supervision. The high level legal culture that
we created during those years of criminal lending is what we have left today...
It is our heritage and we must use it as the base from which we will be able to
revive our democracy – to pull it from its own ashes.
@
the cause
The
root cause of this Great Depression stems from the lack of innovation which
results from the quagmire in which human intelligence has be floundering from
the 70s onwards. The problem is dealt with in depth and substance by the cover
of the Economist (January 2013 issue), which shows Rodin’s “The Thinker”
sitting on a modern toilet and thinking "Will we ever invent anything this
useful again?”... In my opinion, this
article is the most important of the published texts which attempt to describe
the underlying causes of the financial crisis we are living through.
“Capitalism has been in dire straits for some time now and the proof of this is
the recent economic crisis. Having exhausted the technological advantages of
the previous centuries, from the 70s onwards capitalism turned to the hollow financial services sector to give itself a lifeline.
However, the lifespan of this false revival turned out to be short. It is easy to see capitalism’s agonised
search for a new market, a new field where it can re-start its engines of
growth, exploitation and profit." [2, 3].
@
The Fall
In
Greece, which has been dominated for the last forty years by an incompetent and
(almost) universally corrupt political and financial establishment , the
international impact of the lack of innovation and the shift towards the hollow
financial sector, the Greek version of which came to be based on the doctrine
"no development without loans”, created the right economic and social
conditions for the outbreak of the Perfect Storm ... The unsustainable economic basis upon which
our democracy was built resulted in our Democracy collapsing alongside the
economy. And so we in Greece became
witnesses to the brutal murder of Democracy in its birthplace... We literally
and figuratively became witnesses to the destruction of any notion of the rule
of law, which is the cornerstone of any society that is considered (or wants to
be considered) democratic in accordance with the internationally recognised
standards by which a state is recognised as being well-governed. Those in the know - and more than anyone else
the functionaries and everyone else involved in the working of the Justice system-,
became privy to a breakdown of unprecedented intensity, extent and duration, in
any notion of legitimacy. The speed of the violent changes to our national
legislation and the enforced departure from the case law established in our courts
in order to legalise the illegal and undemocratic structures which were built
on the basis of an eternal debt, was an absolute shock for all involved in the
country’s justice system.
I consider that the history of the collapse of capitalism is today
being written on the internet (especially the Greek-language internet). The
well-documented and substantiated economic analyses, the detailed legal texts
and decisions of those courts that stand up against the externally imposed
logic of the "law of necessity" - courts which legally, economically and
financially expose the structures which are being created and which will be the
death of Democracy – these will undoubtedly be important material for future
historians. Furthermore, it may well be material which will be used in fair
compensation procedures in the future for victims of this Great Crisis- this
crisis which attempts to seize private wealth
at the same time as attempting to lower the value given to labour in order to
satisfy the huge debts of the financial sector which were created by methods
and practices of systematic diversion as a result of the lack of innovation and
capital’s insatiable need to create profits.
@
the awakening
The
only undoubtedly positive element of the crisis we are living through is that
it woke European citizens up. The crisis
in our institutions, which was brought about by the crisis in the economy,
meant that citizens were faced with the harsh reality of the rapid and ever-increasing
decline in the institutions of Democracy in almost all European countries. And
most of all, because of the relatively harsh way in which the Greeks of Southern
Europe were punished, this Crisis, which now directly affects the smooth
functioning of our democracy, woke up the philosophical side of us Greeks. Greeks who are historically (and rightfully so)
the guardians of the original Idea of Democracy.
The
violent decline in the quality of our Democracy (at least of the democracy
which was built on borrowed money), from the waters of
the blue Greek sea to the dark(ening) mire of eternal Debt, hurt us deeply as
Greeks and shook us all to the core. Flabbergasted, I suddenly realised that
our democracy was not only not ideal as we thought [4], but that it did not function
at all, because in reality it had an unsustainable economic base as its
cornerstone... Which meant that it was a
fake democracy – and was unable to function properly, as was eventually proven.
And so we have an obligation to history
to recreate our democracy. I believe
that the state into which Democracy has unfortunately fallen in its birthplace
today, creates conditions which could lead to the Renaissance
of the original Meaning and Idea of democracy. To a democracy with new concepts and goals
and a different mindset from all its previous forms. And, most importantly, with different
concepts, goals and a different mindset from the era of the Dark Ages for Greek
Democracy which immediately preceded it.
@
The Perfect States [iDemocracy]
It is the Greeks who carry the historical weight of contemplating,
working towards and making known, using modern methods, Innovative Democracy
[iDemocracy] which will succeed the "former democracy" as we know it,
and the way in which it operates today
in the civilized world. And the weight
of implementing the new form of democracy in the place where our ancestors
"invented" the "former" democracy - now based on obsolete technology,
also falls on the Greeks. I think that the Renaissance of the deepest Meaning and
Idea of Democracy should be the object of this contemplation and our aim should
be to create the "Perfect State".
"Perfect
States" can emerge through the technological upgrading of the obsolete technological
structures which are the bases which underpin today’s malfunctioning states. This upgrading can be brought about
with a fundamental, deep-reaching reconstitution of all the structures and
networks which are currently characterised by a technological deficit in their
operations. In this, special concern would
be given to the technological upgrading of the most critical point in the
system: the point where the core of the State (the people) interconnects and
interacts with the basic structures on which these societies base their functionality
ie the structures of the public and private economy and of legislative,
executive and judicial power.
The
key Pillars of the "perfect state" could be
a)
the activation of a geolocation human tracking system with the subject from
whom the data is transmitted having unimpeded access to his File from the start.
Also, the confidentiality of this data could be lifted by the competent
authorities, under strict judicial guarantees, in cases where any act that
affects legitimate goods and, according to the Criminal Code, is socially and morally
undesirable is committed – ie an act which
meets the description of a crime which objectively exists and which is
considered unfair. The files of geolocational information which are produced by
the geolocation software system recording this data would be stored on a remote
server (in real time), and would provide unlimited opportunities to look back
in time, with access to a wealth of information on human physical activity,
such as movements plotted on online maps (Google Maps, bing maps, etc., the
precise location on the map, the exact date and time that the subject was at
that location (date, hour, minutes and seconds), the speed of movement, the altitude
(in meters above sea level), the geographical position (longitude and latitude)
and the position relative to the grid variation of true South (the heading
measurable in degrees).
b)
the universal abolition of money in a material form (money-free societies) and
the transfer of monetary units in "digital wallets", with
transactions taking place exclusively via handheld wireless devices that would operate
as digital payment terminals. The principle of taxing each transaction in the
entire spectrum of trading activity would also be introduced.
c)
the personalised (per voter) parameterisation of the weight
of the electoral vote (electoral set up), with political institutions
and formations in their current form being abolished and replaced by new,
modern structures to represent the electorate. The process of the electorate’s assessment of
these structures would be carried out in real time (on line), throughout the
government’s entire term of office. In this way, continuous and parameterised
electoral control could be established, both at voter level and at the level of
the electorate. This control would firstly
be exerted on the efficiency of policy (as a whole and per area of responsibility)
and secondly on the adequacy and effectiveness of the people involved in the
government (per the policy area for which they are responsible).
To
achieve the above objectives it would be necessary to create a special digital
application (a "Dynamic Electoral Algorithm”). This would be continuously updated in
accordance with the specific social conditions which prevailed and would
achieve, i) the automated weighting (after being processed as a whole) of the results
of the elections that would be held from time to time and of the personalised
(per voter) parameterisation of the weight of every electoral vote and ii) the automated
weighting of the election results in comparison with
the ongoing evaluation of the government's work throughout the course of the
government's term of office. In this
way, the set-up of the application’s operation is adapted to the changing needs
of society, drawing on the total experience gained from the functioning of
democracy over time, and thus contributes to the election of the form of
government which is best able to meet the needs and expectations of the
electorate and of society.
As
an electoral set up, it will determine the procedure by which the parameters of
the "Dynamic Electoral Algorithm" application are regulated so as to
simulate as far as possible the actual operation of Democracy as a whole, or of
a specific process of Democracy, or of each function separately, depending on
the conditions prevailing in society. Much of this configuration should be done
before the application is brought into operation, ie before the electorate begins
to participate in the continuous evaluation of the functioning of government. However, the configuration would also be a continual
(dynamic) process which would extend the function of the application and would adapt
it to the changing needs of society. In
doing this it should build on the experience gained from the functioning of
democracy over time. So "parameterisation of the electoral vote"
could be defined as the interaction of the function of society with the
functioning of the “Dynamic Electoral Algorithm” both at the level of the voter
and the electorate, something which means that, as well as the application's
capacity to adapt to the conditions of society, it would also be in society’s
interests to adapt to new technologies.
d)
the boosting of creativity and innovation through a specific mechanism that
would operate on the basis of digital social networks (facebook, google+,
LinkedIn, twitter, etc) in a way that would trigger actual progress and
development by stimulating human intelligence and directing it towards producing
innovation in the arts, literature and culture.
"I
know what I did last summer"
Having
always had faith in "geolocation tracking" systems as the "Highest
Guarantors of Legality", in the late 1990s I started to "experiment
in legal matters" with the primitive (at that time) location data recording
applications [see the study summary "Creation of a digital personal
sphere, integrated into digital legal system" (today’s famous "Gps
wristband" which is used to lessen overcrowding in prisons), 5, 6, 7, 8].
But given the truism that "the law is one thing but lawyers are another” these
spiritual searches of a trainee solicitor were abandoned - as was only to be expected
– when I started to practice law actively.
Modern
geolocation systems today offer endless possibilities for going back in time,
starting from the detailed static recording of locational data and extending to
the detailed kinetic representation of human activity. An example of detailed static recording of location
data in an urban environment can be seen here [9], in the sea here [10] and in
the air here [11] (click on the arrows which indicate the position and
direction of movement so you can see the full body of locational data). You can
see an example of a “flashback”, with a detailed kinetic representation of the
activity of the human body, here [12]. [Imagine a more sophisticated system
based on approximately the same logic which provides, using a service similar
to that of Street View in Google Maps, a detailed flashback giving a kinetic
representation of human activity both inside and outdoors].
Legally,
these electronic documents are private documents that plot locational data. The plotting of this data comes from the
recording of the data on the magnetic disk of a PC, as it is processed according
to the commands of the GPS programme so that people are able to read and
understand it, either on the computer screen or through the printer connected
to the computer. In this way, the
electronic display is treated in the same way as the computer.
The
establishment and operation of such a system would ensure that violations of
rules of Substantive Criminal Law would be rare, as, if these rules were violated,
the penalties that the system, acting as the "Highest Guard of Human Value"
and the "Absolute Guarantor of Justice", would definitely impose, would
function as a deterrent which would stop people putting themselves at the mercy
of the Criminal Law of the State. Social relations would become self-regulating in
accordance with the requirements of the rule of law which
would be embodied in the laws and customs. Acquiring rights and incurring
liabilities would also be completely secure. The unhealthy products of lawlessness
and social pathology, such as violence and aggression, drug trafficking, international
human trafficking, dehumanisation, the
destruction of the natural environment, sexually transmitted diseases (and
contagious diseases in general), would gradually disappear, to the point that
most people would be unaware of them and they would become lost in the oblivion
of history. Heinous crimes against life and bodily integrity would be viewed by
people as taboo, so the mechanism of human evolution would eradicate them
completely, as happened with human sacrifice and cannibalism. It would even
give the potential power (wrongly in my opinion) to regulate issues that have
troubled human relationships from time immemorial, such as breaches of faith in
personal relationships which involve infidelity and, mainly, intercourse
outside the framework that has been (explicitly or implicitly) agreed and which
takes place in a manner which is dishonest in practice. Thus, through consensus and with transparent
management, exposure to unexpected situations that lead to unpleasant emotions
such as anger, loss of trust, remorse, guilt and shame could be avoided.
Furthermore,
relating the functioning of Democracy with the operation of the "Optimal Dynamic
Electoral Algorithm" at the level of voter and the electorate could rid
Democracy of its worst enemy: "political
cost" which is responsible for more than half of mankind’s suffering. The
automatic (dynamic) configuration of the weight of the electoral vote in
accordance with each voter’s "profile", as well as the ongoing
evaluation of the quality of government during the government’s term of office,
would guarantee that under this Democracy no one would have the ability to
manipulate the electorate anymore, because it would be completely impossible to
predict the outcome of any election. So Democracy would be saved from the cancer
of "political cost" that threatens to kill it, as unfortunately
happened in its birthplace...
The
universal abolition of money in a material form (money-free state) and the transferring
of monetary units in "digital wallets" with transactions taking place
exclusively via handheld wireless devices which would function as digital
payment terminals, would ensure that transactions are absolutely safe. However
the most fundamental point is that this would ensure that it is possible to
achieve effective compliance with tax laws and thus to safeguard public
revenues, with all the advantages that this entails for
humanity as a whole.
@
ICommunism [innovative digital re-establishment of Marxist theory with
intelligent systems for the central control of the economy and regulation of
financial transactions, with strictly defined relations
between production and consumption]
Briefly,
according to Marxist theory the causes of the financial crisis are a) the
accumulation of capital, b) underconsumption of the masses, c) the anarchy of
production and d) the drop in the average rate of profit. In Marxist theory, economic crises are
considered to be the basic ailments of the capitalist system. In the pages of his
famous "Communist Manifesto" Marx spoke as follows on the financial
crises of capitalism: "In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that,
in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of
over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of
momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation,
had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce
seem to be destroyed." The words that Marx uses in this case are critical.
He describes the crisis as an epidemic for society or, even worse, as famine.
According
to Marx, the key causes of the financial crisis are a result of the basic
contradiction in the capitalist system between the social character of
production on the one hand and the private nature of ownership on the other hand.
The social character of production requires the conscious regulation of
financial transactions. For all the goods produced to be sold, there should be
strictly defined relations between production
and consumption in the economy. However, the private appropriation of the means
of production and goods produced makes it impossible to plan the development of
the economy. Each individual capitalist, chasing profit, puts all his effort
into his own business at precisely the time which enables him to produce as
many goods as he can and to place them on the market. All the other capitalists do the same thing. In
an effort to increase their profits, they constantly increase production and
place new goods on the market, hoping to sell them. As a whole, capitalists are
interested in expanding the purchasing power of the masses so they can sell
their products. However each capitalist individually,
in his effort to increase profit, tries to reduce his workers’ wages because
the wage bill is a key component of the cost of production. The workers,
however, are the main buyers of the finished products of capitalist production.
The lower wages are, the fewer goods can be absorbed by the market. It is in
this way that the antagonism between the unlimited accumulation of capital which
leads to an oversupply of products and the limited purchasing power of the
masses which leads to large quantities of products remaining unsold, becomes
apparent. So, when supply greatly exceeds
demand, this causes a massive drop in orders and a significant reduction in
current production. This lack of sales and the decline in current production
together lead to the accumulation of capital seen in a crisis, which translates
into falls in investment, production, employment and, wages, etc. The fall in
the average rate of business profits leads to successive reductions in
investment which are the main feature of a crisis. [13,14,15,16]
This
gives me the feeling that the degeneration and ultimate fall of so-called
"real socialism" is not due to errors in Marxist theory as the
majority of thinkers/opponents of Marxism currently believe. Nor is it due to the theory that the modern
Leninist movement supports, the need to re-establish communism (in the so-called
"real" socialist regimes that tragically degenerated and were turned
into exploitative class-based regimes in the name of communism) [14,17,18]. On
the contrary, this leaves me feeling that the fall of “real socialism” is due
primarily to the inefficiency of the obsolete structures of the party/state bureaucracy
which was responsible for the central planning of the economy and the
regulation of financial transactions. The long period of time which intervened
between production and the centrally determined setting of prices (and vice
versa), meant that the relations between
production and consumption were (generally) wrongly determined, something which,
as everything indicates, led to a continually worsening imbalance in the
functioning of the economy, culminating in the system collapsing completely.
This
communist re-establishment is one of the perceptions which underpins the
understanding of several groups in the communist movement (to which, it is
worth noting, I do not belong) and also underpins many Marxist theories. This idea, or, more correctly, the digital re-establishment
of the economy on the basis of Marxist theory (Communist set up of the
economy), could be directed towards the digital reconstruction of experience
and of our knowledge of the past from the political and theoretical perspective
of the possibilities offered today by modern technology, based on the core of
Marxist theory: the central planning and regulation of financial transactions
in real time, with strictly defined relations between
production and consumption, based on prevailing economic and social conditions.
In this way it would become possible to optimise (determination automatically
in real time) a) the accumulation of capital, b) the consumption of the masses,
c) production, d ) the continuous redetermination of the level of wages and e)
the continuous central determination of the rate of profit.
The
operation of a Suprasystem of Central Control and Interconnection for the entirety
of the Economy and the possibility of regulating financial transactions would,
I suspect, result in production regaining its social character, so that all the
goods produced could be sold, with strictly defined relations
between production and consumption. In this way the private
appropriation of the means of production and of the goods produced, which is
characteristic of the way in which capitalism functions, would not be able to affect
the possibility of planning economic development because, through the central determination
of the key economic indicators, any individual trader’s profit would be
determined centrally. The operation of the System of Central Control and
Interconnection of the Economy would mean that individual capitalists would no
longer chase profits by producing, and then flooding the market with as many goods
as they can in the hope that they would be sold.
Furthermore,
the continuous (central) determination of the amount of wages would (also) make
it possible to continuously re-determine the purchasing power of the masses in
a way that would ensure that the sale (of a centrally determined quantity) of
all products on the market would be absolutely guaranteed. In this way the
ideal balance between profit/wages and consumption would be achieved, something
which would ensure the ideal (at any given time) determination of wage levels, which
would in turn ensure that the workers would continue to be the main buyers of the
finished products of production, absorbing at any given moment the ideal (to
balance the economy) quantity of goods at a centrally fixed price, which would (also)
be redefined in the light of prevailing market conditions, with the aim of
balancing the economy. “State Welfare Social Dividends"
could be distributed via smart digital applications which would measure the
productivity of the labour force, so that productivity would be rewarded at an
individual level (see below).
The
central control of the economy would also ensure that the ideal balance between
the accumulation of capital (which in capitalism leads to an oversupply of
products) and the purchasing power of the masses would be achieved continually. This would avoid a large stock of unsold
products being created. I suspect that if a Suprasystem of Central Control and
Interconnection of the entire Economy were in operation, this would achieve the
ideal balance between supply and demand at any instance, so supply would never
exceed demand to the extent that it caused a massive drop in orders and a
significant reduction in the current production. In this way the accumulation
of capital seen during a crisis, which translates into a drop in investment,
output, employment and wages, would be avoided. It would also ensure that the
fall in the average rate of profit for business would never be big enough to
lead to successive reductions in investment, which are the dominant feature of crises
in capitalism.
The
operation of a Suprasystem of Central Control and Interconnection for the
entire Economy, would allow the factors which result in an overheated economy
going into a downturn to be detected in good time. This would ensure (as a starting point) that
the economy would not be likely to become dangerously overheated. This would be
possible because the Central Management System would be alerted in good time to
any overheating and would act immediately by imposing restrictions on the excessive
growth in investments (in order to slow down overheating), and would thus
prevent a dangerous (at a later time) oversupply of products that could not be
absorbed in the short term.
Furthermore,
the central control system of the economy would provide the ability to balance out
(even in its very beginning), the imbalance which can be seen in the recession
phase of the economy between total supply and total demand for products, ie demand being lower than supply. This balancing
out would be immediate and effective because of the System’s ability to
centrally reconfigure the parameters of the Economy until a balanced position
was reached. The reconfiguring would be achieved by taking the measures necessary
(at the time), which would immediately and effectively be diffused throughout
the Economy, through the software of the central and peripheral devices and
networking of the "iCommunism" platform that would "run"
the Economy.
The
measures could be aimed, for example, at immediately increasing consumption,
through timely and targeted increases in wages and the simultaneous reduction of
both production and the rate of profit and investment, until such time as there
is a balance in the economy between aggregate supply and aggregate demand for
products (the fluctuation in the economic parameters could easily be targeted at
increasing the wages of workers in a particular industry or only at reducing
profits and investment in one sector of the economy which is overheating dangerously
or has entered a recessionary cycle). These temporary increases in wages (or on
the other hand temporary reductions if conditions so require), could a) be scaled
and on a personalised basis depending on the productivity of each worker (see
below, introducing smart digital applications which measure workforce productivity)
in a way that ensured that the injection of liquidity necessary to balance the
Economy would definitely reach the market, irrespective of how this liquidity
would ultimately be distributed to employees and b ) be generally or specifically
targeted exclusively at consumption (ie excluding the portable "digital
wallets" which would be used for all transactions aiming at saving the
money from this temporary wage increase and, only allowing consumption, either in
general or of targeted products and/or services from more productive sectors of
the economy, in accordance with the prevailing economic conditions so that the
economy could be returned to equilibrium conditions). If the above measures
proved insufficient, the state would have the power to automatically intervene and
to achieve the necessary increase in demand through public investment,
depending on the stage of the economic cycle that the Economy was going through
(see below, the enrichment of System with elements borrowed from the Keynesian
principles).
As
long as the Central Management System of the Economy was structured and set up
correctly and the central server’s software was "well written",
management would be balanced and the economy would enjoy continuous – albeit
slow - growth, where demand would always
be greater (even if only slightly greater) than supply. So that critical moment when this is reversed in
such an extreme way would never arrive, because the Central Management System of
the Economy will “see it coming” and would prevent it in time. So the rate at
which supply increases would never be much greater than the rate at which
demand increases. In this way the long-term evolution of economic activity
would be either stable with a slight upward or downward trend (in periods of
stagnation of innovation) or steep (in periods with an explosive increase in
innovation), with a general trend of long-term (probably) economic growth, however
slight. This is because the Central Management System would only allow
"Good" profit, ie profit based on "Good" Growth, ie on
Growth that is based on real innovation. The system would preclude "Bad"
Profit, ie profit pursued as an end in itself and based on falsified forecasts
and estimates of the progress of the economy, as has unfortunately been
happening over the last thirty years in capitalist economies.
This
would quite probably be the only time in the history of economic development
when the beneficial multiplier and accelerator effects of the economy would not
come from – mainly random – cyclical financial fluctuations in the economy
(business cycles). Instead, economic
development would only come from increasing investment as a result of
technological development and innovation (instead of from artificial demand as
is the case today). In times of stagnation or crisis (from causes that would be
exclusively external such as natural disasters and wars), the Central
Management System would take responsibility firstly for the balance between
total supply and total demand for products which is vital for a balanced
economy and secondly for intervening to achieve the necessary increase in
demand through public investment.
Furthermore,
in this case it is unnecessary to talk about the extreme factors which drive
capitalist economies from recession to sudden overheating, ie the extreme imbalance between aggregate
supply and aggregate demand for products, with demand
being higher than supply, because, as stated above, a hypothetical
digital re-establishment of Marxist theory [iCommunism] would base the
functioning of the economy (exclusively) on an innovative Central Control System
which would result in the regulation of financial transactions being based on
strictly defined relations between production
and consumption, something which would prevent overheating since it would
achieve a continuous balance between the aggregate supply and demand for
products.
We
should not overlook the usefulness of Competition as the driving force that
promotes innovation. However, the way in which the concept of competition had
degenerated and the unfettered widening of the limits within which it operates
in the economic environment of authoritarian neoliberalism, lead to the crisis
we are experiencing today and to the consequences of this crisis which are extremely
serious for the global economy. The causes of the devastating crises that
capitalism produces should be sought in the fatal, for the Economy, mix of a) a
lack of real innovation as a result of the quagmire in which human intelligence
is wallowing and b) the function of a particular authoritarian model of
neoliberalism which demands unfettered and unaccountable (Catastrophic)
competition, ie the Thatcherite fundamentalism with that
"wonderful" "faith",
the "free trade faith", which deifies the power of markets in the
name of economic efficiency by eliminating any administrative obstacle to
maximising benefits enjoyed by individuals.
Keynesianism
seems to worsen the situation as it is believed to reinforce irresponsibility.
Or more accurately, the assurance that the state will intervene to help,
enhances highly irresponsible behaviour and, by extension, extreme risk-taking.
All the more so when irresponsible behaviour and extreme risk-taking is already
present within the operational context of the economy which is dictated by
authoritarian neoliberalism, with an unregulated - supposedly free - market.
Although opponents of Keynesianism agree that some government intervention may
indeed help, they criticise Keynesianism saying that it "has conquered the
hearts and minds of politicians and ordinary people alike because it provides a
theoretical justification for irresponsible behaviour." They think that if
Keynesian principles are the cause of the recession, it will be difficult for
these principals to provide a way out of the recession. However, probably the opposite is true. There is a catastrophic vicious cycle where
Keynesian principles are not the primary cause, but an effect, of the recession
(as in the crises which neoliberalism creates, the State only intervenes on the
sound, in principle, reasoning that government intervention is the only way to exit
the recession). However the certainty (that
the state will intervene to help) reinforces the extreme irresponsible behaviour
(which is associated with extreme risk-taking), in turn enhancing so-called
"Destructive Competition", and it is the results of this vicious
cycle that we are living through today.
Therefore
we urgently have to find a way whereby, within the operation of the economy and
without justifying irresponsible behaviour, we can both promote healthy
competition (through the drastic reduction of the Destructive Competition which
is required by authoritarian neoliberalism), and ensure that the lessening of
competition as a precondition for wealth does not to kill private initiative. So
we need to find the perfect spot, somewhere between the positive points of
neo-liberalist theory and of Keynesian principles. This can only be done
centrally and in an automated way through the innovative/digital re-establishment
of Marxist theory as the main operating base of the economy. On the one hand this would regulate
Competition as it increases along with private initiative (so that it does not
become Destructive), and on the other hand it may intervene at any time to help
(both not to reinforce extreme irresponsible behaviour and, by extension, not
to indorse extreme risk-taking).
Therefore
the question that arises here is whether a hypothetical model of the digital re-establishment
of Marxist theory as the main operating base of the economy could balance
itself, or whether it would have to be digitally enriched with elements of a planned
economy borrowed from theories of neoliberalism and Keynesianism (iNeoliberalism
and iKeynesianism as an auxiliary Setup for the Economy which would operate in
the iCommunism platform). So the debate focuses on whether a digitally
self-regulating re-establishment of Marxist Economic Theory would lead to people
having a culpably lazy attitude to physical and mental work, being indolent or
indifferent to the interests of society as a whole, or deliberately lazy and uninterested
in promoting the common goal of the welfare of humanity as a whole. These are features of human nature that
cannot and should not have a place in a "Perfect State" because no
one has the right to thrive on the fruits of social welfare which are sown by
the trouble and toil of others. This is important because this parasitic behaviour
impedes growth and social welfare and also has an impact on social networks, and therefore cannot and should
not be tolerated, either from a financial or moral viewpoint.
The
problem of culpable laziness (physical and mental) in relation to work, and
laziness or indifference to the interests of society as a whole. could be
addressed with innovative applications which would assess the entire workforce. These applications would be
"running", both in the Central Management System of the Economy and
in citizens’ wireless (peripheral) terminals which would act as "digital
wallets" within a entirely money-free Economy [it is not possible to have digital
re-establishment of Marxist theory without a money-free economy, because the
implementation of the theory in practice would fail once again], as follows:
a)
With the introduction of "State Welfare Social
Dividends" that could be distributed via smart digital applications
which measure the productivity of the workforce (these would be awarded at
purely individual level). The "State Welfare Social Dividends" would reward
the productivity of each worker and could be derived from the algorithmic parameterisation
of employee performance (especially of workers) in connection with any upward
trend in public finances. It would be
distributed on the basis of any surplus in the state economy, purely as a reward, depending on the contribution
and commitment shown by each worker to achieving the common goal which is the
welfare of the society as a whole. In this sense, this may well comply with Marxist
theory in relation to the pleasure that people derive from work, as indeed,
work would not be perceived as an oppressive necessity but as an opportunity for
people to creatively express their abilities with the result that it would not
be distinct from leisure time.
However, those who have a culpably lazy
attitude to physical and mental work, are lazy or indifferent to the interests
of society as a whole, or deliberately lazy or uninterested in promoting the
common goal of the welfare of humanity as a whole, could be completely excluded
as these are aspects of human nature that cannot and should not have any place
in a "Perfect State". The Central Management System of the Economy could
provide them with a minimum acceptable standard of living, purely in the name
of abstract humanism, on condition that they agreed to participate in the
"Community Service" that the System would impose on them. And
although poverty could be eliminated entirely with Central Control of the
Economy, and thus the lazy surviving with just a minimum acceptable standard of
living would not be morally permissible as resources and manufactured goods would
be distributed equally amongst all members of the society and economic
productivity would be maximized, the lazy surviving on a minimum acceptable
standard of living would be essential to avoid this physical and mental
laziness. This policy would be aimed
entirely at protecting the public interest.
Instances
where economic resources are transferred without any justification via gratuitous
contracts, either from previous generations to later generations who are lazy
or reluctant to work, or (in anyway whatsoever) to people who do not contribute
to the welfare of Society but still manage to live parasitically at the expense
of the society as a whole (sometimes even living luxuriously in a way that the
common, average hardworking man could never imagine) purely by taking advantage
of personality traits or circumstances which do not constitute objective
"virtues" (such as, for instance, coming from an affluent background,
or being exceptionally beautiful - especially women), could be addressed by the
system purely as parasitic. A severe tax
regime could be introduced, either at the source (donor) or on the transactions
that these people (the beneficiaries) attempt to make. The logic could be that people who are
provocatively lazy and who detract significantly from society, both socially
and ethically, would have to pay more for consumer goods (especially for luxury
goods) and for entertainment. In fact
they would have to pay a ruinously high price which, in the spirit of relaxing,
protecting personal freedom and freedom for people to develop their personalities
and to develop trade in the public interest, would be much higher than the price
their fellow employees would have to pay.
The
adoption of restrictions such as this in a centrally controlled economy would
result in these people either becoming completely marginalised socially or
making a rapid return to the world of work - a forced renunciation of the
parasitic lifestyle which is only based on the
emptiness of a personality. This would remove the people who are "lit with
the light of others", ie those whose only "light" is the
"light" which they take from the glitter of consumerism and is
associated with an empty existential personality. In the movie Family Man, a
poor but honest and hardworking woman
asks Nicholas Cage,who
is standing in front of a Ermenegildo Zegna suit costing $ 600, "Why would
anyone want to buy such an expensive suit?". Tom Hanks’ answer, "Because when I wear
it I feel a better person", could be the subject of moralistic reflection,
provided that Tom Hanks was "self-lit", ie a hard worker in his field,
and therefore was not living parasitically at the expense of society as a whole.
b)
The problem of culpable mental laziness in non-manual workers, such as
scientists and researchers, men of letters and the arts, business executives,
self-employed scientists and generally anyone who could produce, or wanted to
produce, innovation in science, arts and culture, could be addressed - through
innovative applications which evaluate the entire workforce as described above and
via an innovative mechanism that would operate on the basis of digital Social
Networks (facebook, google+, LinkedIn, twitter etc ), so as to trigger
innovation by stimulating human intelligence. This mechanism could be
incorporated into Digital Social Networks in a way that it would become the
personal innovative identity of scientists, artists, politicians, etc.
All
of the above give me the feeling that the "Perfect Balanced Setup for the Economy"
could come from combining the digital re-establishment of Marxist theory (as
the main operating base of the economy), with Keynesian theory probably operating
as a supportive (via intervention) function in the Economy in times of crisis
to prevent any early "marginal efficiency of capital" which in this
theory is the basic characteristic of the economic cycle. Keynesian principles’
secondary role in the Economy would probably require state intervention to be
activated automatically so that the necessary increase in demand would be
generated by public investment according to the phase of the business cycle
that the economy was in. Whichever phase
this was, it would be recognised in good time and identified accurately by the
Central Control System of the Economy. However it is very probable that Keynesian
intervention would prove unnecessary in normal conditions (peace, unexceptional
weather, etc.). This is the case because the digital re-establishment of
Marxist theory as the main operating base of the economy would probably be
sufficient in itself to achieve the self-regulation of the Economy as the Suprasystem
of Central Control of the Economy would make it possible to effectively prevent
the causes that generate and trigger Crises [this hypothesis is based on prior probability
that in normal conditions the beneficial multiplier and accelerator effects of
a centrally controlled economy will not come from – mainly random - cyclical financial
fluctuations in the economy (business cycles), but only from increasing
investment resulting from the evolution of technology and innovation (instead
of artificial demand as is the case today) and therefore that it would only be necessary
to use Keynesian principles to intervene in the Economy in response to events
which are understood as being entirely external such as natural disasters and
wars. In this case, the Central Management System would take on the role of
activating state intervention to achieve the necessary increase in demand
through public investment – a role which is vital in balancing the economy].
And
because the system could not function without preventing and suppressing culpable
laziness (both physical and mental) in relation to work and/or laziness or
indifference to the interests of society as a whole, it would be necessary (as
explained above) to introduce innovative methods of assessing labour force
productivity, by establishing a system of rewards, such as "State Welfare Social Dividends" that
could be distributed via smart digital applications which measure the
productivity of workers. For non-manual
workers, mainly scientists, this could be done by introducing innovative
mechanisms that would operate on the basis of digital social networks
(facebook, google+, LinkedIn, twitter etc), in a way which would inspire human intelligence
to be innovative in the arts, literature and culture.
And
if this web-like system of the state also "ran" the subsystems such
as the geolocation human tracking system and the systems which recorded the
intangible financial transactions and the automated parameterisation of the
weight of the electoral vote both at the level of individual voters and for the
electorate (electoral set up), then maybe “Perfect States" could rise from
the ashes of the primitive economic and social models operating today.
[It
is obvious from the above that the present approach does not apply (although it
could) to the idea of re-establishing Marxist theory in exactly the same form (ie
that of the communist state where the means of production such as land,
factories, large companies etc, are social/communal property and are not
individually owned, and are collectively managed by all workers) or to the Marxist
opinion according to which "communism is the supreme, final evolutionary
stage of society which no longer takes the concept of the state into account and
private ownership of the means of production or distinct social classes are not
known" [ 13,14 ] - without it being possible however to exclude this with
certainty if there has not previously been a comprehensive attempt to apply
this model in practice.
Only
in this way, ie through the full digitization of the model and its application
in practice, would it be possible to draw reliable conclusions on whether or
not the proposed merits of Marxist theory are overly idealistic in this
re-established version. In this case, we
cannot even exclude the possibility that it might lead to the “ideal communist society"
predicted by Karl Marx, where indeed society would be able to function
autonomously, would be directly democratic and decentralized, without a market,
state or distinct social classes and would have the aim of meeting the material
needs of all citizens, under the doctrine "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs" which is embodied in communist
ideology. I feel that any digital application of Marxist theory could vindicate
Karl Marx for the "self-dissolution of the state as a result of the
highest final stage of the development of a communist society" which he
predicted, in the same way as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN vindicated
Peter Higgs for the "God particle", the existence of which he had
predicted].
This
approach has been proposed in the spirit of a possible re-establishment of a
mild version of Marxist theory, starting with the digital re-establishment of
social democracy. This would aim to
establish a more limited socialist transformation of society through continuous
reforms intended to distribute wealth as equally as possible, but within the
existing framework of constitutional legitimacy [15] and a centrally controlled
middle class "liberalism". It is likely that these socially and
economically socialist models will actually prove to be transitory, in the
sense that they would operate in a continuous phase of evolutionary transition which
would be moving towards "ideal communism" where the state would
arrive finally at the point where it would dissolve itself, and in so doing, demonstrate
in practice the accuracy of the Marxist "prophecy".
Marxist
theory has been demonized to a great extent by the dominant ideology of the
last thirty years, and has been particularly demonised by the peculiar
authoritarian neoliberalism which demands that the state be completely
subordinate to the requirements of economic freedom by destroying any
regulatory framework for the functioning of markets. However, Marxist theory is now considered to give
the most convincing theoretical interpretation of the economic cycle and the malfunctions
in the operation of capitalism and is now returning to the front stage through
the limitless possibilities offered by new technologies (especially the
Internet and by powerful wireless handheld devices), which now make the central
control of the economy entirely feasible. This concept amounts to the total reinstatement
of the idea of re-establishing
Marxist theory through new technologies [iCommunism].
It
would certainly be possible to write thousands of pages about the structure of
smart digital economic models that attempt an innovative (digital) revival of a
centrally controlled economy based on Marxist theory. The same could be said
about the potential for enriching this economy with elements of planned economies
borrowed from neoliberal and Keynesian theories (iNeoliberalism and
iKeynesianism as an Auxiliary Setup for the Economy which runs on the iCommunism
platform). But these are issues which (obviously) digress from the spirit and
scope of this article. Please note that
this (introductory) study, on which I spent somewhat less than 100 hours, was
written in an attempt to describe the form (deterministically) that the Democracies
and Societies would take after 30-40 years had passed. It is also obvious that
the design and the digital implementation of the system would require hundreds of
committees of learned and wise people and many years until the necessary
experience would be gained from any pilot project. An experimental
implementation, however, could be attempted on an (initially) limited
geographic and economic scale, possibly with two "Model Towns"
(closed to the outside world to a great extent), whose guests would enter fully
accepting the Terms of Operation (Money-free society, geolocation etc).
The
first could be based on the Central Control of the Economy in accordance with the
re-establishment of Marxist theory in an unchanged form ie a State where the
means of production such as land, factories, large companies etc. are social/communal
property (not individually owned), and are collectively managed by all
employees. The second could be based on Central Control of the Economy according
to a particular version of the re-establishment of Marxist theory which would
differ from the unchanged version only to the extent that the means of
production such as land, factories, large companies etc. would still be individually
owned but would be subject to strict central constraints which would be aimed
at the central planning of the economy and at the regulation of financial
transactions, with strictly defined relations between
production and consumption, depending on the prevailing economic and social
conditions, so that it would be possible to achieve the optimal (in real time)
determination of a) the accumulation of capital, b) consumption of the masses,
c) production, d) the continuous redefinition of the level of wages and e) the
continuous central determining of the rate of profit.
In
conclusion, the implementation of systems such as these would lead to
unprecedented development in the high-tech sector, and the economy overall. It would open a (huge) new field of research
and development, based on the design and production of the innovative digital
applications that would be needed to manage the new generation of Systems of
Economy Policy. This would also be true of the industrial design and production
of the items which would be needed to operate the System (mainly new generation
sensors), which would facilitate the interconnection between the individual
elements of economic and social activity and the software of the platform that
would run the Economy and Democracy as a whole.
It
would be one of the few periods in the history of the development of capitalism
where the beneficial multiplier and accelerator effects of the capitalist
economy would come not from an artificial excess demand, but from an initial
increase in investment due to the evolution of technology and innovation for
the (under construction) new economic and social models. It would be a boost to
the economy and investment which would be similar to that which occurred in the
19th century when machines began to play a role in the production process – a
boost which would be much stronger even than the 20th century boost which
resulted from the introduction of computers and particularly from the spread of
the Internet.
In
this way, today’s collapsing capitalism would be given a vision - real economic growth, progress and prosperity
for the human race – which would be based on the indisputable premise that
"machines can only tame man, for his benefit and his value" ... In
this sense, the digital re-establishment of Marxist theory could be the
salvation of today’s collapsing capitalism.
This
makes me completely certain, that the primitive economic and social models
which are "running" today in our supposedly advanced democracies will
soon give way to innovative economic and social digital models that will
promote social progress and prosperity and will enhance the value of human life in all its glory.
