Libertarian Movement Is Dying

This rich man's propaganda wont infect the majority of American intelligentsia. Much like a very virulent flesh eating bacteria, this cognitive infection burns through adherents too quickly to infect many.





It may not feel this way but the libertarian fad is on its way out. Sure it dominates the English speaking Internet at the moment. Sure the absolute number of adherents is rapidly increasing by the day. However, as this oligarch funded movement is about to reach its moment of triumph, the engines will stall and it'll nosedive very rapidly (at least in its current form). This is primarily due to realization of early members that they are fighting for a hideous neo-feudal future that they will most likely not benefit from.

To visualize the state of the movement, picture a fire that begins in the middle of the forest. As it spreads and rages in all directions, the original center is no longer on fire. People on the outside get an impression of an endless advance.

Most of the intelligentsia (NTs) gets into libertarianism because they mean well. Due to their physiology they may not be fighting out of emotional empathic care for fellow humans but they genuinely do want a far less "stupid" socioeconomic system. Now that the field of economics has been discredited in this country, the libertarian ideology can't hide under a pseudo-scientific mask any longer. Thus even acquiring new NT members will become more and more difficult since the statement "self educate and become less stupid" now rings hollow. As libertarian thought becomes more mainstream and more adopted by elderly rural people, it also will lose its edgy rebellious attraction among the high schoolers. The alexa.com stats on viewer demographics of marxists.org provide a hint of the future.

The movement will continue expanding for some time among non-intelligentsia due to:

1) seeming lack of alternative ideological ways to express dissent (major dissident groups crushed in the 1940s-1970s period along with FDRism itself in the 80s period)
2) continuous backing for it among an older mentally dimmer faction of the oligarchy (who don't understand that the political apparatus they control actually does them a service by buying off the bottom 20% of population to not rebel)
3) continuous backing for it among the comfortable well paid white collar proletariat (out of cynical self interest since they think they'll be able to make it in a new neofeudal order)
4) some geographic "heartland" regions having to resort to neofeudal survivalism by default (throughout our time of troubles transition period when the federal center of force is receding and not providing services any longer)

However it'll be like a plane without engines, moving by inertia or crude hated necessity. The human engines of the movement will no longer have their heart in it if they have any intellectual honesty.

Previous articles covered how the libertarian movement is striving towards removing checks and balances within the elite population (making elites in government totally structurally subservient to private ones rather than at least co-equal. This is inexcusable to do if human motivation is power based rather than happiness based) and how easy it is to co-opt such a movement (which has already occurred with Ron Paul's efforts to a large degree). This realization is dawning on former libertarians throughout the English speaking world.

What to expect within the movement?

Expect a lot more "libertarian socialists", "liberaltarians", "libertarian technocrats", etc. To save face, maintain the ego, and to preserve some power, many prominent libertarian thinkers and leaders will now preserve "the best" (some much needed political decentralization and social freedoms to do consensual acts) and dump "the worst" (giving even more power to rich entrenched mafia families). We've seen such tactical transformations happen among communist movements throughout the world after the soviet demise. We should also see more emphasis on the "welfare" wording within US constitution and calls to expand the bill of rights as FDR wanted. Many can possibly still remain "libertarian" if they expand/modify the definition of what coercion means. A simple tweak away from present medieval/feudal definition does wonders.

One interesting comparison can be made to dissidents in the Soviet Union. Majority of them used Marxist theory to criticize the Soviet government (even if some secretly wished for it to end or to emulate capitalist societies). It was a lot safer and saner for critics to say that USSR was not real communism at all and not what the founding fathers intended. Many American libertarians similarly found themselves resorting to attacking the state's official ideology by saying it doesn't adhere to some mythical vision of "true" capitalism.


How to deal with them by non-libertarians?

Other dissident groups should realize that infighting among them is not helping against the ruling regime. Libertarians are still the most numerous dissident faction and can be a great ally, a sort of shock troops on the ground (especially the blue collar rural people). Attacking and slandering them only hardens them and keeps the engineless plane from hitting the ground a little longer. In the meantime, there is much common ground to be had in formulating a socioeconomic platform acceptable to every faction.

In dictionary next to false consciousness

A possibility cannot be discounted that the movement may actually produce some interesting theoretical contributions as it tries to conceptualize what to replace the current corporate shareholder rule by (and thus compete with other dissidents such as the technocrats). Sure some current attempts at conceptualizing a "voluntaryst stateless" society are comical, clumsy, and too blatantly neo-feudal. However given time the movement's thought (originally funded by the rich to defeat FDRism) may even produce something interesting and tangible.

Even as we are bombarded with all manner of absurdities and outrages, even as the ranks of youth seem to be joining a movement whose mission is to make these absurdities and outrages much worse, don't lose heart friends. Behind the forest fire things are much different and even the fire itself may help take down a rotten house. We will settle differences of opinion about how to build a new house afterwards.

Return of Class Warfare

The super rich suffer from acute nihilism and are vastly outnumbered by newly Internet literate aggressive personality types. They will lose badly if they don't preemptively and radically modify present socioeconomics

Considering all the negative attention that the global oligarchy has been getting recently, one interesting fact often left unmentioned is that the super rich are outnumbered 9,999 to 1. Let's briefly define what we're dealing with.

When one really filters rich people overall, it's evident that the number of decision makers is actually rather small. Out of 7 billion people on earth in the near future (6.8+ billion now), less than 1% are trend setters within social hierarchies. This is the socially visible merchant class that makes money purely off capital investments. That is less than 70 million capitalists scattered about. Majority of this group have relatively insignificant pools of investment money which doesn't expand much (mom and pop small business owners who may have some political pull locally but not too much nationally and internationally).

Within this group, there is 1% (<700,000) that makes the rest look like paupers. Here is a detailed article showing the sheer inequality among the capitalists in United States. These are the people so far removed from the rest of the world materially that they usually end up oppressing the lesser capitalists (through stock market swindles, cartels, and disproportionate buy outs of political lapdogs). In other words, majority of those within richest 1% are fighting their own battle against the 1% in their ranks.

The 700,000 super rich are trend settlers among trend setters. At this point real oligarchic activities become possible. An oligarch is simply anybody with enough disposable wealth to influence politics. Although actions (like paying 2 thousand dollar ticket at a candidate's fund raiser and donations to think tanks of one's choice) technically qualify, in the international arena influence really requires funding/owning think tanks with a global reach.

Finally, perhaps around 50,000 individuals (a few thousand families really) within the 700,000 have the power to culturally pull the rest of the international oligarchy behind them through role modeling and proactive moves. This small number of key oligarchs makes it very easy to hound them politically. Conceivably, people can protest in front of rich people's gatherings rather than in front of gatherings of politicians in the future.

The 700,000 are buffered by millions of loyal and very well paid proletariat patsies. They are the cream of the crop of the wage laborers who often defend the caste above them to the bitter end. One can compare them to house slaves who got it pretty good (200,000 - 600,000 a year paychecks). They can be found writing state propaganda articles for such oligarchic mouthpieces as the Harvard Business Review, The Economist, The Atlantic, and similar rags. This richest proletariat caste appears the most brainwashed due to its complete adoration of the ruling caste (desire to mingle and get interviews) and contempt for the caste right below them. Here is a good example of the type of apologist garbage they tend to write. It pretends to be a serious criticism on the surface while actually being staunchly defensive (avoid if you have a weak stomach).

The good news.

Out of 7 billion people on the planet, almost 500 million people are ENTJs and ENTPs, many of whom are getting Internet for the first time. If you include all relatively unemotional and intuitive homo sapiens such as INTPs and INTJs (perhaps even more dangerous to the rich through behind the scenes work), then the number goes to 700 million uppity proletariat. These 700 million people are the most likely to self educate themselves by utilizing new informational technology and to subsequently find out about their exploitation at the hands of the 700,000. Now, they cannot all be bought off, suppressed, and co-opted. There just isn't enough room in the upper circles for so many comfortable house slaves. Even if 20% of them are co-opted into status-quo hierarchies worldwide, that leaves over 500 million on the outside looking in. This means that the enemies of humanity at large are outnumbered roughly 500-1000 to one (by people who got the drive and the oversized ego to try to bring them down).

The richest 0.01% cannot always count on the loyalty and constant support of the 10% of the population internationally (those who are assumed to have too much invested in the system and who are "too comfortable" to rebel). As much as petty capitalists and top notch white collar professionals defend the oligarchy on a day to day basis, as much as they want to be the people above them, their adoration can nevertheless rapidly transform into burning resentment and jealousy (since they realize that there are tangible limits to meritocracy and social mobility even in the upper circles). Therefore, roughly half a billion energetic, excitable, self educated, and newly politically aware individuals on the "outside" got people and supporters on the "inside" who can sabotage the oligarchs up close and feed valuable information (leak data, provide whereabouts of gatherings, provide funding, and share strategic input).

Besides being outnumbered they are also overcome with nihilism which can be exploited

Just as was the case over 100 years ago (when Nietzsche first described the phenomenon in detail), it appears that the most powerful individuals on the planet have not developed a common and coherent moral system for themselves and their offspring. Even as the elites are becoming increasingly culturally homogenized via cosmopolitan modes of consumption, Internet communication, international think tanks, common ivy league education, and jet travel allowing frequent dinners together, the majority of them have not officially agreed upon a life expanding moral framework of the future.

The future necessity and inevitability of some centralized governance on a planetary scale combined with the psychological need of rulers to overcome nihilism in a permanently atheistic world (when hedonism, Buddhism, socioeconomic ideology, and attainment of power to highest offices in the land fail to provide psychological comfort), will lead to such moral concoction eventually. However in the meantime, the lack of a relatively uniform belief system to indoctrinate elite's children (future planetary leadership) into is leading to severe infighting when it comes to paths towards planetary unification. This in turn allows for international paralysis and deference to the default mode of predatory corporate globalization overlapped with petty nationalisms.

Out of 700,000 super rich, the combination of thirst for both knowledge and power over others is mostly prominent among the NTs in the Myers Briggs typology. That leaves us with roughly 70,000 individuals who'd like to tinker with humans in new ways on a global scale and who have the financial means to do so. The ESTJs, who are 10% of the population, can add people to this group but only for managerial non-productive (in terms of building a new system) positions. Oligarch ESTJ spawn is likely to engage in something seemingly unnecessary considering their money such as military service. ESTP ofspring would get their kicks from flying balloons around the world or hunting lions (the traditional venues). Other personality types would not really be interested in possibilities of planetary governance. Many would consider politics in general beneath them (since politicians are just butlers) and boring. Even fame loses its appeal since it is not a means to get ahead and brings attention of the peasants to the wealth. If politically engaged at all, their donations would just go towards supporting the status quo of current predatory globalization.

Most of the world's proletariat are so busy just trying to survive that they have overestimated the potential of psychological fulfillment that hedonism can bring. For children of the oligarchy, sex, travel, and partying stop providing the same kick when they reach their late 20s. That's when they go their separate ways as determined by what neural breed they are. The financial means of the oligarchic NTs do a number on their egos (and the egos of the clinical psychopathic minority most likely overly represented within the ENT group) as a type of world conquest becomes possible.

One may argue that power may be sufficient to fill that void but only a minority of elites have the extroverted and emotionless traits to be inclined towards active involvement in politics. Even if they attain positions in high office, the satisfaction from power gained is not great considering most modern legislative and executive branches in the Western world are trapped within crushing interconnected oligarchic corporate power networks. Thus, even if a son from the capitalist class gets into high public office, his real satisfaction will stem mostly from drinking, talking, and dining with fellow political junkies rather than remolding the world with his will. If some legislation does get passed, it'll mostly benefit his fellow top 1% peers and have a less than pleasant feel that he is their secretary. It could very well be that political backers who actually try to get the poor peasantry educated are doing so out of resentment against their overbearing aristocratic fathers and/or their more extroverted political friends. This certainly has happened before when some children of the aristocracy in imperial Russia and Britain flirted with communism.

Conclusion:

They are much weaker and more psychologically paralyzed than they appear. Their patsies can be turned against them and millions of people throughout the world will go about doing just that. The goal is to target key oligarchic financial structures (federal reserve and various major banks) and create informational critical mass in the minds of the wage laborers at large. The super rich have grown too soft and comfortable and the intellectual oligarch strategists among them are overwhelmed by group think and cultural inertia of their peers. As this brilliant article suggests, sociologists should refocus from studying the least well off members of society to those best off in order to properly analyze what we're up against. To understand it is to find ever better ways to fight it. In the near future, the political class can be made to serve the general population again. Politicians are notorious for being able to smell blood in the water and the oligarchs present very juicy cows from which to milk political capital and fame (those politicians who stand up to the robber barons tend to get into history books).

Maximum Wage and the Limits of Human Inequality

Pegging the rise of maximum compensation to the rise in the minimum will go a long way towards avoiding global disruptions





The appropriate maximum wage that society should have will be a critical issue in this century. It is generally agreed upon at this point that a neurosurgeon should get compensated more than a tour guide. The Soviet experience of a relatively narrow gap between highest and lowest compensation (top company manager officially earning 3-5 times the entry level worker) shows that society's progress stagnates if tangibly unequal abilities and contributions are rewarded with compensation that's perceived as relatively equal. Yet various banana republics (United States included) around the world demonstrate that stagnation also sets in when wage inequality gets sufficiently monstrous.

It is not enough to look at relatively egalitarian societies like Japan or Sweden to try to find some golden maximum/minimum ratio. What is needed is a common sense and/or philosophical framework that 1) justifies a certain income ratio
and 2) creates conditions compatible with human nature and self interest that allow the set ratio to be maintained.

1) Justification for capping the difference between top and bottom incomes should be grounded in reality and pragmatism and not idealistic popular desires of how a world should be. Theorists like Nietzsche spent considerable time elaborating that humans aren't equal. Yet in an ironic twist, the same reasons (that he gave for not having a leveling system where everybody is assumed to have the same value) can be used to set limits to difference in valuation.

click to enlarge

Like many characteristics of a population, the natural abilities to be exchanged for money are spread along a bell curve. Natural ability is anything that gives a physiological edge in addition to training. An example would be the hyper sensitive and rare taste buds of a top chef or a fighter pilot with remarkable reflexes and fast twitch muscles. If you take a person with poor taste buds and a person with exceptional ones and provide both with identical intensive high quality training on food preparation, there will be a certain intangible limit to how much better one chef is than the other. This applies to all professions. What is known for sure is that one is not 1000 times better chef after the training (or 100 times). Such numbers are simply ludicrous mathematically.

Napoleon Bonaparte is not 100 times superior person to say, a gas station manager and neither does Napoleon deserve 100 times more cars, 100 times more houses, 100 times better quality food, 100 times the salary, 100 times the size of personal land, etc. Think about it. Even without the leveling of military training, if you take the brain of the gas station manager and multiply its function by 10, the gas station manager would give Napoleon a run for his money in most if not all areas of life. Whether intelligence, speed, personality, patience, if you take an ability on one low end of the bell curve and multiply it by no more than 10, you automatically get to the other end of the bell curve (ex: IQ of 30*10=300).

I am using a multiple of 10 for simplicity here since the actual difference cannot be readily quantified (one perhaps can argue better for 15, 20, or 8). Considering the outrage over the bankster bonuses in the last 2 years, it appears the general public intuitively knows that there are limits to salary compensation. What remains to be done is to draw some line in the sand. A person earning 10 times as much as somebody earning 50 grand a year is getting half a million and automatically gets into top 1% income bracket. 10 times the compensation is an enormous leap. This perhaps sounds shocking, the way explaining that a duke does not have divine right to all the local land might have sounded shocking 300 years ago.

"But isn't compensation also determined by social importance of an ability (usually allocated by market forces)?"

As far as social importance, it is a very valid point. In today's absurd dying socioeconomic system, we don't see prime ministers and military generals receiving the same incomes as Lloyd Blankfein or other wall street criminals. We also don't see the operators of nuclear missile submarines getting 400 times the amount a waitress or a new army recruit gets (the way a modern CEO does compared to entry level workers in his/her organization).

Certainly the argument from social importance would indicate societal leaders, augmenters, and protectors to be the most vital. It is a tricky subject which should be properly studied with in depth examination of what professions benefit society the most (hint: engineers and scientists in political power). There are various ways of determining social importance with length and difficulty of educational training being one of them and critical examination of what makes real physical economy grow being the other (to filter out people who spent 13 years in intensive study of psychoanalysis or Gregorian chant from the top compensations).

This leads us to the idea of a free market competition, a concept as utopian and disconnected from reality as pure communism. The unregulated "market" is and will remain a diverse collection of political power centers that evolve the rules of the global private casino as they see fit. The obvious examples of the market giving top rewards to athletes, pop stars, and organized crime (Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, etc) shows that it is a very poor determining mechanism of socially important tasks. This is where we see a difficult social divergence happening between perceptions of important jobs (nuclear power plant director) and consumer determined rewards for not-so important jobs (national talk show host). Obviously we'd like for both the public and infrastructural demands (that allow the public to live) to have a say in compensation without too much divergence.

If incomes could be broken into 10 levels, it very well could be that a top entertainer should be a level 7 worker (earning 7 times more than the minimum income of level 1) while the nuclear power plant director gets to be level 8. This will be up to the politicians and the needs of the crowds as long as they maintain the ratio system (in this case, based on maximum wage difference of bottom income multiplied by 10).

2) How does one make the maximum wage system stable and compatible with human nature? The simplest solution is to make the rise in maximum salary dependent on the rise in minimum salary. This means that if level 1 worker earns 100 units a day while the top level 10 worker earns 1000, the level 10 would only be able to get a raise of 10% to 1100 units if the salary of level 1 goes to 110. If you are beginning to suspect we are moving beyond capitalism to a more high tech welfare system of the future, then you are correct. Notice how the maximum salary gets to grow while being tied up to the minimum.

Pegging the material progress of the highest compensated to the material progress of the poorest can easily work within the capitalist system but it begins to work even better in a post-monetarist technocratic system. The strongest and richest must be given a personal incentive to improve the lives of the weakest and poorest through an income peg. They will still remain 10 times better off (10 times the cars, 10 times the living space, 10 times the clothing) but at the same time, if they work in their self-interest they will be lifting all boats. This dynamic inevitably puts more technically oriented people into top positions of society where they are most needed anyway. We're talking people who understand how to improve infrastructure, logistics, and basic structural economic welfare provision.

These matters will continue being a major concern as we gradually transition to a post scarcity transhumanist world of the future. It is important that we start discussing the limits to human inequality early on before social disturbances on a planetary scale have a chance to really develop.

Multipolar World Means More Freedom

PART 2 of Threats to Freedom Series: Mechanization makes it more profitable for world's future oligarchs to switch from competing by force and financial exploitation of the third world to competing in industrial output and welfare provision



 
Recently, the global international situation changed from one of feudalism (with each feudal lord constantly trying to slaughter the other with full use of the vassal states and being polite and collegial in peacetime) to one of libertarianism. The former vassal states/serfs are now "free" to work for former masters who now style themselves as capitalists. Every small country in the world is "free" to dress how they like and do what they want with their body as long as they work for United States or European Union sponsored financial institutions.

Those countries that really want to make autonomous economic decisions are threatened by force, internationally ridiculed, or badly beaten up. We can see how ridiculous the situation would be if 200+ "sovereign" countries were actual people living in one neighborhood block. United States would just be the muscular mob boss loan shark with a crew of yes men. They would makes rounds down the street, slap people around, or drag them by the collar. Germany, England, and Japan would be the former mobsters who put away the guns (for the most part) and now try to be the corner store owners and minor loan sharks. They pay a bit of protection money to United States and tacitly support it to preserve the global system that benefits them. France and Russia (also former mobsters who got beaten up rather badly) are the ones who want America to weaken so there can be collective bullying of the world. They try to make conspiracies with Germany to that end since collective bullying and loan sharking would give them a larger share of the cut. India, China, and Brazil are too well armed to be bullied anymore and are just trying to stay out of business on the street for now. Everybody else is at the mercy of the colorful characters above for their wealth (if they don't want to lay there dying in the streets).

It's an intolerable situation internationally and intolerable domestically. Blatant use of force will have to come to an end since racketeering is inefficient and will exhaust society that practices it through logistical overextension. That has been the case for centuries and is especially true if the racketeer does not lead in making useful products. Recent American slide into a new economic depression has accelerated the process of multipolar world's reemergence. Rise of new global powers ( European Union, China) and perseverance of old regional powers (Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Iran, India, Japan), is raising macro level competition to new levels. The oligarchs ( that exercise control over most governments on the planet) cannot compete anymore by using force since it is now economically, physiologically, and politically suicidal. As such, interstate competition has to take the form of constantly raising the quality of life for citizens living inside. As much as it pains them, oligarchal elites can no longer throw the poor armed with bayonets at each other to gain greater market share.

The modern form of post-violence competition is also burning itself out. It has so far involved:

1) Overworking citizens by ideologically promoting economic libertarianism domestically, to other great powers, and within the post-colonial space. This increasingly resulted in wealthier workers growing poorer while competing with even poorer foreign workers for an increasingly shrinking and depreciating currency pie

2) Turning small nations into indentured servants (they way American former slave masters did to freed blacks in 1870s) by force. As discussed in part 1, the international community now respects states as independent autonomous decision makers. Of course that is only on paper since United States has used mass violence and coercion during the transition of countries from colonial slavery to post-colonial dollar dominated indentured servitude. Western powers are also freed from the expense of protecting their former subjects.

3) International financial manipulation of currencies, investments, and capital flows through IMF, WTO, World Bank. This allowed Western elites and their third world elite allies in creating wealth outflows from the third world and giving regional conspirators a share of the cut

older unipolar world concept: click to enlarge

The first method of competition in terms of reduction of state power by oligarchs ( to promote economic libertarianism and profitable indentured servitude within the general population) is also overextending itself. Many oligarchs have found out (like their ancestors in the late 19th century) that if you don't provide health care and other infrastructure for your indentured servants, the rich of other countries cut into your profits with time. Many of the American rich have recently seen their worker related health care costs rise dramatically and so decided to pass on the costs to the government. Obama even admitted publicly that health reform is needed because the American worker is becoming too expensive for domestic employers. Indentured servants ( who are overburdened by costs of living and whose incomes are reduced by competition and outsourcing), are bad for domestic consumer market and bad for foreign investment. A paradox is created in which economic libertarianism cuts costs in terms of paying people less but increases costs of privately provided infrastructure. Even if private sector mimics some third world countries in not providing any infrastructure or welfare, it finds that domestic consumer market is hurt and violent insurgency looms on the horizon. Libertarian economics also reduces tax revenue to support the military as a second type of competition.

Blatant use of military force was the cheapest path of least resistance to be used short term. The French, German, American, and British oligarchs in the 1970s and 1980s could care less that the new violent indirect loan shark method of exploitation is unsustainable. They had a wonderful pretext in the form of Soviet power to defend their financial interests. They has the cover of the constant cold war emergency to look the other way when America frequently engaged in international violence. Now that the cold war is over with nothing to replace it with, there is no justification for enormous military apparatus to shake down poor nations for money and resources. Military action, besides being unpredictably draining as Iraq has shown, also results in increasingly earlier blowback from various populations. This type of competition was the most effectively and widely used by United States and we have seen how it rotted and impoverished the general society. Japanese, Dutch, and German oligarchs now smirk at the price and inefficiency of huge conventional war machine over the cheaper way of worker training and healthcare provisions. They are able to keep their white collar workers productive and obedient tax payers and supporters of the status quo.

International financial structures such as the IMF provide a forum and platform for the world's rich on how to peacefully exploit the entire planet. These structures had a competitive function against communist backed international structures (such as Comecon) for courting third world power elites. Now Chinese and Russians want inside the exclusive Anglo-American/Western European dominated financial cartel and it is beginning to lose some of its purpose.

Since these methods are burning themselves out, we will see new forms of international competition rise. We will increasing see attempts by powerful interests to use government power to create a German style welfare state. Only such attempts stand to preserve as much capitalism as possible in the face of two immediate threats. The first is competition from foreign rich who are better able to exploit third world resources/the poor while remaining domestically productive with exports (such as the Chinese). The second bigger threat to international capitalist business as usual is the rapidly increasing mechanization.

Efficiency of assembly lines and technological production has multiplied many fold since the times of Henry Ford in the 1920s. From a purely non-ideological scientific perspective (in terms of resources, rates of production, energy expenditure, etc), the world is more than capable of providing a basic annual income to 9-10 billion people along with minimum level of schooling, shelter, food, pharmaceuticals, clothing, and basic technological gadgets. This has been true for some time now. Industrial machine production has become so efficient that even in 1960s Milton Friedman talked of minimum basic wage and scientists warned the president of rising mass unemployment becoming socially destabilizing and impoverishing in the future. The truth that nobody talks about is that a large bulk of humanity is no longer needed as workers. Mechanization (which accelerated its already breakneck pace with the computer revolution in the 1980s) is making far more first world workers obsolete than outsourcing. It is absolutely ridiculous for capitalist ideologues to suggest that by the middle of 21st century, most or even a third of 9 billion people will all work in advanced hypertechnological white collar jobs.

Nobody believes it.

Here's the scenario that economic libertarian internationalists actually describe for the future in hopeful optimistic terms. They want the world united under direction of a few financial institutions so capital can flow unhindered to smoothly create the flat world that Thomas Friedman talked about. Exponentially accelerating technological growth ensures that only a few million oligarchs need to employ a few dozen million super skilled white collar technocrats to oversee production and distribution. Then of course you need whatever corporate local branch staff not already replaced by robotics. The globalization proponents actually suggest that a planetary system (that doesn't need vast majority of people to work for it) will be able to constantly sell advanced products to most of the world's population at a profit!

Say it takes for example, an outrageous number of 10% of world's population to man the factories making the nanotechnology suits and flying cars and robotic assistants. Say it also takes 10% to fill the white collar positions of the planetary corporate structures to distribute and promote the goods. 80% of people not working are supposed to to buy the products and thus provide profit and wages to the 20%! Don't laugh. The fantasy being seriously promoted by many internationalist globalists. Most people are supposed to be each others bartenders, barbers, and juggler type entertainers. Yes, even with advanced college degrees. It is so logistically irrational that the world's people will reject the idea before the real starvation, violence, and hyper poverty begin. Global unification under such a corporate system is far more structurally and practically ludicrous than any socialist design envisioned in the 20th century.

Many of the world's political and corporate elites understand this and know that transition to post scarcity systems must begin at the top while they are still in control. That entails politically defeating internationalist free market oligarchs and using the government to provide vast safety nets for the armies of the unemployed throughout the Western world. That also entails pushing the government to take managerial control of strategic sectors of the economy such as car/ship/airplane production facilities as well as the land with natural resources. Agricultural land will also be taken (most likely utilizing the health pretext of making food products safer for consumption).

Of course the process in United States will rip its social and political fabric apart and it is likely the process will first be started and finished in Germany-France-Russia-China-Japan block. Once United States follows (hopefully without civil war or other violence), most societies on earth will become advanced welfare states that technology necessitates. Free market hold outs in South America will join once they see United States blatantly copying Russia in strategic asset seizure. Many countries will flip to this model not because they can now do so without facing American violence (or investment ruin) but because the former capitalist superpower now pushes the opposite. Following the transition by most leading countries, the increasing % of society that is unemployed due to mechanization will be able to receive a minimum income and goods stipend.

Such a transition is the only one that would allow most of the oligarchs to continue making a lot of money (and avoid violence and government seizure without compensation). Thus it will be done.

This is what was meant in 1950s science fiction predictions about people in the year 2000 working 1-3 hours a day or a couple days a week. Mechanization and gains in efficiency cut out most people from being needed for work. As such, the global unification will be taken by rich welfare states that keep the factories running by providing a minimum of material goods to themselves and all the peoples of the world. Of course natural resources are needed for that. We see how China rapidly acquired 60% of Africa commodity exports while becoming the factory of the world. Perhaps "free market with Chinese characteristics" is not a euphemism for them selling out but a long term strategy to become the backbone of a new world order. Only European Union has the assets to become a partner in such a system and European oligarchs will push it to do so. Then world's governments will trade natural resources in exchange for goods that are distributed to people for free. Anything less than that (such as violent preservation of the current free market/finance architecture) means mass suffering and turmoil the likes of which we haven't seen in over 50 years.

Lets make a full circle to why a multipolar world with EU (including Russia), China, and U.S. balancing each other creates more freedom. Since the only logical logistical system is a post-scarcity stipend for most people, the key aspect of autonomy is satisfied. When individual human beings are guaranteed a food/shelter/resource stipend, they can demand greater subnational sovereign rights from international bodies and their own governments. The national governments will devolve power to people below and to international/regional structures(that supervise resource/goods trade) above. Global authorities such as departments within the newly empowered UN and International Court of Justice can finally begin to fulfill their functions and charters.

Today's competition between regional powers involves exploitation and violence. Tomorrow's competition stands to take the form in which regional powers compete to produce the most quality goods to be distributed for free. It's very easy to come up with incentives for a few million meritocratically chosen technocrats needed to operate the systems. Neither currency nor overlapping service industry capitalism need to disappear to supplement 21st century solution to a looming crisis. World's resources will flow to those states that make the best use of them. The talented technocrats will still find a society that has the best assembly lines and resource management and get paid handsomely for their services. The rest will take a small step towards the universal goal of greater sovereignty and self mastery.