New ideology
To`my Potter“The history of all previous existing society is the history of class struggles,’ wrote Karl Marx…I am tempted to reformulate it as follows: The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of the struggle of ideologies and the quest for justice.”
("Capital and Ideology" Thomas Piketty)
There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Recently I was struck by Thomas Piketty's book “Capital and Ideology”. There is this idea: The economic formations we know (slavery, feudalism, capitalism) are societies of an unfair distribution, maintained by violence. But people do not like to be victims of violence. And they do not like to carry out violence. There is therefore a need to justify the social relations that exist, to give them legitimacy. People feel more comfortable if they perceive inequality as fair and inevitable.
The stability of society is maintained by religions, ideologies, including various narratives. Originally, a narrative was an oral story that conveyed an idea, for example about the structure of the universe. In particular, narratives are used in politics, advertising and business to shape public opinion and control people's behaviour. Nowadays they are also used in print, radio, television, the internet and artificial intelligence.
Of course, the beneficiaries of existing inequalities have always tightly controlled the narratives that are disseminated - in every known society. Just how different these methods can be is illustrated by the difference between freedom of speech in the West and strict censorship in Russia. But the result is the same - the overwhelming majority of society shares the ideas being disseminated.
Of course, there is a constant battle of ideas, especially in an unstable situation. And the change in economic formations is accompanied by the uncovering of some narratives and the creation of new ones. I believe that the West is ripe for a new economic formation, or at least for significant modernisation. The task, therefore, is to debunk the narratives of today's hyper-capitalist society and create new ones.
We all have a perception of reality, mostly conveyed to us through media narratives. And this perception is often wrong. So let's try to debunk the false ideas circulating in the public consciousness of Western countries.
The systemic crisis of the developed capitalist western society cannot be overcome without a fundamentally new ideology. This ideology should present an attractive picture of the future, desirable for all peoples of the world, and not only for the inhabitants of developed countries - as well as the path to this future.
What bright future does the freshly baked new ideology offer us? In the most distant and foggy perspective - some kind of world government, multi-level direct e-democracy supported by artificial intelligence, no weapons of mass destruction and no armies. Hunger, poverty and fear are already forgotten. The citizens of planet Earth are entitled to an unconditional basic income. In addition, they can have both earned and passive income. Private property is protected, although social inequality is minimal. The capitalist mode of production still dominates the non-capitalist mode, but it is under full political control. A large part of the world's budget is spent on ecological projects - such as jungle farming in the former Sahara desert. Interactive virtual reality cinema games about life under dictators are popular.
In a less distant perspective is visible - already more clearly - a world, divided into two antagonistic camps - the "Authoritarian International" and the "League of Democracies". To build a working ideology, we need to show how the League of Democracies will defeat autocrats, dictators, bankers and international savage capitalism.
The first, basic, condition for victory is superiority in the economy. "League of Democracies" should ensure greater productivity of social labor. With today's low GDP growth rates in developed countries, the collapse of the democratic form of government is inevitable. The only question is how it will happen - quickly or slowly, peacefully or not. How to overtake China and other aggressive countries in economic development, reduce social inequality and unite society is discussed in the chapter "Straitjacket for Capital".
At the same time, it is necessary to achieve accelerated socio-economic development of underdeveloped friendly countries in order to prevent ecological and demographic crises. How to deal with dictatorships, human rights violations, hunger, migration - all these global problems is discussed in the chapter "Militant Humanism".
In this chapter we discuss how the "League of Democracies" should be arranged. The discussion often ignores the question of HOW to achieve this in today's real political environment. First of all, it is important to imagine what exactly you want to achieve. This will allow every person and every organization to find their own way and their own methods of struggle!
Ideological crisis
The new ideology must be adapted to the emerging world order, in which countries are divided into two antagonistic camps, the "Authoritarian International" and the "League of Democracies". For the previous half century, the elites of these two camps have lived in perfect harmony, exploiting the planet's population and natural resources.
Initially (approximately in the period 1970-2010), capitalists in the developed democratic countries plundered their countries, pumping resources (investments and production capacities) to underdeveloped countries - for high profits. Accordingly, the pace of development of developed countries was very low. Social spending also hampered rapid development.
Economies of poor countries (such as China, India, Russia) grew rapidly. These countries showed openness, and many of these countries, such as Russia, have simulated democracy.
Since about 2010, major investment flows have changed direction. Now China and Russia are buying up valuable assets in Europe and North America. In the past, Western investors have invested in China (and other poor countries) for high returns.
But investment from China (or from Russia) is a state-controlled process in accordance with long-term plans for economic conquest and destruction of democracies. Whereas at the end of the last century China created favorable conditions for Western investment, nowadays Western business is being politely squeezed out.
As a result, the economies of democratic countries are breathing heavily. In Germany, for example, the average German has only doubled his or her wealth since the start of the 21st century, whereas in China it has increased 35-fold! As a result, poor Chinese also benefited from this growth. In Germany, on the other hand, all the growth has gone to the rich, while many of the poor have become even poorer.
Traditional Western capital is now being squeezed out of world markets, which has generated a backlash. The economic war with China was started by Trump. The US has probably lost more than it has gained in doing so. In this environment, the idea of a "League of Democracies" revived again. The new President Joe Biden began to promote the idea. In the meantime, "Authoritarian International" - without too much fuss - is booming.
By definition, the League of Democracies is supposed to defend democracy. But so far it has come down to defending the interests of Western big business. (And for big business, democracy is more of a burden with social obligations.)
The general population in Western countries is not eager to defend democracy. Social inequality is growing and many are gradually becoming poorer. Big business has almost complete control of politics and the majority no longer trust political parties or leaders. Turnout in elections is falling. People are uncertain about the future and fearful of it.
On the other hand, there is a lack of leaders who have an idea, a vision of the future and are able to offer their states and peoples a way out of crises.
As a result, there is no common picture of the future for all, no image of a fair, bright and attractive future. This is the crisis of ideology.
The currently accepted ideology
In economics it is neoliberalism, which proclaims the principles of the free market and non-interference of the state in the economy. Neoliberalism hates such things as tackling inequality, social protection and imposing restrictions on business. Under the banner of neoliberalism, international corporations have plundered underdeveloped countries and imposed bloody dictatorships (starting with Pinochet in Chile) since the 197s. In Western countries neo-liberalism has led to ever-increasing social inequalities. Such a "bright future" pleases no one, not even the wealthiest.
Social life is dominated by libertarianism. But libertarianism is more of a dogma or a belief that needs no proof. In short, the recipe is simple: give people as much freedom as possible and everything will be fine. And if not? Then screw it all? Libertarianism does not seek to understand and explain how today's society was formed and how to build a better one. It is not interested in political struggles. It is simply a religion to which very different people, who otherwise have nothing in common, agree.
Humanism, with its belief in human rights, can be seen as part of libertarianism. Humanists are unaware of the existence of economics or class struggle. They know how beautiful everything should be, but they have no idea how to achieve it - it does not interest them very much.
Recently, the most visible trace of humanism and libertarianism in realpolitik has been identity politics. It has led to the formation of various groups based on nationality, religion, sect, race, ethnicity or gender. For example, women, blacks, gays, Muslims, indigenous people, etc. Each of these groups fights for their rights and demands recognition of their exclusivity and special privileges. Women and black people declare themselves victims and also demand, demand, demand... (In psychology, this behaviour of "victims" is called "emotional blackmail").
Identity politics creates a vicious circle of social divisions and is a real danger for liberal democracy. Dictators have already realised this and in their hybrid warfare against democracy are actively fomenting these existing divisions, for example through social media and fake news. But the new ideology should not only unite the people of one country but also conquer the global space.
We create an ideology and any ideology "totalitarianises" thinking and fights against other ideologies and alien ideas. So "we" tell "them": "Human rights and democracy must be defended. We, of course, recognise your super-duper identity and that you have been unfairly offended. But we're fighting for a brighter future for humanity. So get in line to fight for a brighter future or drop away".
Dictatorship of voters
The last half century of the triumphant march of global capitalism has resulted in the fantastic enrichment of a few and a significant decline in the living standards of a significant part of the population of the developed democratic countries. As existing democratic institutions demonstrate their inability to reverse this accelerating process of impoverishment, they will be overthrown and some form of authoritarian rule will be established.
The capitalists understand this trend and are counting on nationalists like the Alternative for Germany. They hope to kill two birds with one stone. Firstly, to use authoritarian power to suppress the protests of the discontented population, as was the case under Hitler. Second, to use the policy of divide and conquer. Only now, instead of Jews, migrants should become the object of hatred.
The alternative to nationalist aspirations to power is the dictatorship of the electorate, i.e. direct democracy in the context of revolutionary transformations. Direct democracy, as in Switzerland, exists in conditions where the interests of the classes are more or less balanced, although in recent years there has been a process of increasing corporate influence. In other developed countries, business interests are embedded in laws and international treaties, and there is no legal way to force the rich to pay reasonable taxes. In this situation, a "dictatorship of the armed voters" may be necessary.
Changes in the distribution of the "national cake" do not necessarily have to be violent. But in any case, it is impossible to achieve voluntary concessions within the framework of existing laws and democratic procedures. This can be seen as a key position of the new ideology and something that contradicts the beliefs of the majority of citizens, who believe that participation in elections, social movements and parties, in principle, makes it possible to balance the interests of different classes. Maintaining this belief can be seen as an ideological victory for the ruling class. And here's what billionaire Warren Buffett says: "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning". (quoted from the New York Times 26 November 2006) However, the context shows that Buffett himself is not happy with the current situation...
The combination of dictatorship and democracy can be perceived as an oxymoron, as contradictory concepts, as nonsense like "dry water" or "hot ice". But the combination of a strong vertical of executive power and renewed democratic institutions should guarantee an advantage over both forms of government - both authoritarian and representative democratic.
At present the most suitable candidate for transformation into the League of Democracies is the European Union. To be more effective in the international area, the League must resemble a centralized state and have a unified foreign and domestic policy. What then remains of the sovereignty of individual EU states that are members of the League? After all, it is a dictatorship! Yes, the dictatorship of voters.
There сould be 4 levels of democratic governance in the League: 1-Local, 2-Regional, 3-Country and 4-League. At the local level, especially in smaller settlements, all important issues can be dealt with in the old fashioned way - at a general meeting of the residents. At all other levels representative democracy must be supported by direct democracy. As in representative democracy, voters, as usual, elect their representatives - deputies, mayors, presidents... As in direct democracy, voters can repeal laws passed by parliament, initiate new laws, and pass or reject them in referenda (or plebiscites, if the vote is initiated by government bodies). Voters can also remove their previously elected representatives.
It is a complex system. This is normal, because the development of complex systems always means more complexity. However, a complex system can be inefficient and clumsy. And this is not acceptable. For the League to survive, high efficiency and "instant response" are the basic requirements for the League's management system.
Joe Biden said that in private conversations, “Both Putin and Xi Jinping have indicated to me that they don’t think democracies can work in the 21st century because it takes too long to arrive at a consensus; that’s why autocracies are going to win the day.” Of course, democratic institutions have been built over centuries in a worldwith slow changes. These days, technology is advancing rapidly, but the democratic process is slow.
Modern digital technology makes it possible to organise traditional elections and referendums quickly, cheaply and reliably. Artificial intelligence makes it possible to calculate the will of millions or even billions of voters almost instantly - and to propose a solution in a critical situation. These days, politicians are already using the results of various Internet polls and special programs for monitoring social networks to understand what voters want. Technologies such as e-voting or e-government are already in operation in some countries. Authoritarian countries are far ahead of the curve, but with the opposite aims - censorship, suppression, propaganda, cyber warfare.
But the most important thing for the governance system of any country is the generally accepted ideology. When people are united by a common idea, things go well even with poor management. For example, now in Ukraine, the political and military leadership is hardly capable of coordinating military operations in all regions. However, the Ukrainian troops are surprisingly successful - thanks to a common ideology. In contrast, the EU is in complete disarray. Enormous managerial resources are used to agree on sanctions against Russia, and thousands of officials and deputies are involved in the negotiations. And the result is miserable. How can one not recall Aesop's fable "The Pregnant Mountain", in which "The mountain gave birth to a mouse".
Capitalism or socialism?
The trajectory of development and the current state of civilization is determined by the species that created this civilization - the species "Homo sapiens". Like other species, Homo sapiens exhibits both altruistic and selfish tendencies. Apparently, socialist theory and practice are based on altruistic inclinations, while capitalist theory is based on egoistic ones.
In capitalist countries, where socialism (in the form of a social security system) is not welcome, the situation in society is unhealthy. For example, a country as rich as the United States has a high crime rate and life expectancy could have been higher. Purely socialist countries, where private property (selfish in nature) was banned are broken up - there are no such countries anymore. European countries have found the golden mean. This is called: "socially oriented market economy" (which is now in crisis). According to our ideology, exactly that form of economy should be improved - in the direction of greater economic efficiency and social justice.
Capitalism and democracy near the divorce
Marriage & Divorce of Capitalism & Democracy
https://cmu-lib.github.io/dhlg/project-videos/dedeo/
Capitalism and Democracy, Reconciled
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/capitalism-and-democracy-reconciled/
Democracy And Capitalism May Be Headed For Divorce
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democracy-capitalism-martin-wolf_n_57c6f0d9e4b0e60d31dc7287
Continue: Militant humanism
Content:
New ideology
Ideological crisis
The currently accepted ideology
Dictatorship of voters
Capitalism or socialism?
Capitalism and democracy near the divorce
Militant humanism
tomy_potter@protonmail.com