Politics in the Age of Technology Induced Social Fragmentation

Most of world's people culturally live in different time periods ranging from 1820s to 1970s (Western time). This should be taken into account in international relations to avoid conflict and to speed up transnational construction projects.




When forging political coalitions to push through great infrastructure projects in the near future, we need to take into account continued rapid acceleration of two opposing social trends:

 
Trend A: Continued disintegration of unitary mass culture.

Mass culture was previously spread among the majority by top down mediums like television/newspapers or concepts like religion/geographic nationalism. As the demographic still affected by these mediums and concepts gets older and/or poorer, mass culture will become increasingly peculiar and less unifying for the whole population. In a way, that is worrying since the glue holding the diverse personality types will really only continue to exist among the diminishing baby boomer block.

Horizontal Internet communication allows the diverse rich spectrum of human breeds to not only find those similar to themselves but also to only communicate and interact (socially polarize) among those like themselves. Thus we see emergence of micronations and tribes within these micronations to a level unseen before. This explains why there is greater amount of difference within Millennial generation than there is between Millennials and Boomers. We see such technology enabled socially polarized clusters reflected in rising acuteness of various movements (libertarians, atheists, etc). There is little to dampen the fervor of these micronations since social media and search engines increasingly cater to people's informational preferences thus isolating, reaffirming, and making them more "acute" by the day. All of this of course was said when newspapers, television, and radio came into being since people could select among the channels, stations, or papers. Horizontal, socially emergent, bottom up, and cheaply widespread nature of the Internet is a qualitative step above these past mediums. There is possibility of major disruptions comparable to immediate post-Guttenberg press period.

At the very minimum, a cutting edge hybrid of proportional representation and direct Internet enabled democracy will need to be provided so at least the major personality clusters (SJs, SPs, NTs, NFs) can have political parties to represent their sensibilities. However, it is not sufficient to just provide the tools for these social clusters, tools that allow a political release valve for their feelings and energies. We need to start thinking of a unifying strategy and platform to prevent major paralysis stemming from intergenerational bias, intercultural bias, and particularly 21st century biases (micronationalism versus globalism and "inter-era bias"[see below]).


In the Western world, the disintegrative trend has started among the elites many decades ago, moved on to the professional upper middle classes in the 1960s, and is finally reaching majority of the population. The process of atomization and cultural disintegration described above is rolling like an accelerating wave from most culturally developed countries to all areas of the world. Four decades ago, Alvin Toffler's Future Shock and Between Two Ages made it clear that world's population lives in overlapping "eras" (preindustrial, industrial, post-industrial, technocratic [post-capitalist]).

One could be upper middle class in Nigeria living in industrial period culturally reminiscent of America in the 1840s, one could be lower class in Berlin living in early technocratic period, one could be an Afghan elite living in a pre-industrial stifling society, one could be a rural educated kid in Bahrain independently discovering the values of the hippy movement of 1960s America, etc. Russian Federation for instance, displays many cultural tendencies of late 1940s early 1950s USA. The overlaps and permutations are endless and there is great urgency to avoid mass psychological disturbances and violent frictions from reactionary conservative movements.

It is the shared responsibility of the trend setting Millennials at "ground zero" of cultural atomization (North America) to figure out how to lead productively in the informational spheres like TedTalks, documentaries, conferences, and newest mass media. With their proper informational leadership, they can show how to go forward as a global society without becoming stifling or reactionary.

Trend B: Continued increase in popular desire for more collectivism and community among those who already spent years living in very fragmented atomized societies.

An example of this was seen in the manufactured "Reagan revolution". As minority of the population (Ivy Leaguers who discovered their ego and hedonistic potential that comes with it) grew tired of the rest of society not catching up with them and the loneliness that comes with it, they chose to reabsorb themselves into a new form of corporate nationalism (that emphasized endless individual material expansion and dropped the need for collective sacrifice of prior exhausted FDRist nationalism). In the years ahead, we will see top down and bottom up calls for a still newer nationalisms that try to remedy mistakes of the American experience of both 1930s-1970s period and unfortunate 1980s-2008 period.

One possible solution and an inverse of Reaganism may be material nationalism (such as communal claim to land and key natural resources within nation states), physiological nationalism ("we are all human! and no matter how diverse got common physical needs!"), psychological nationalism ("we got common emotional needs!") and a mix of all 3. At the same time, the middle classes will insist on continued room to build hyper individualism (if desired) and further personal autonomy in psychological, interpersonal, and material realm (example: perhaps the people collectively own the land but you own your own unique shelter and property on this land).

It is possible that the educated intuitive suburban youth in the Western world will continue to further individualize and create ever more acute microtribes indefinitely but the shared viral experience of global information will increasingly provide a sense of a real global community and desire to be part of it somehow.


Reconciling the Trends Politically

At first it seems that we have a recipe for endless conflict. First, the perpetual exponentially increasing friction within Trend A. Then the clashing of Trends A and B as some more backward segments of global intelligentsia strive to break free of mass community and older nationalisms while cutting edge intelligentsia tries to reassert some new postmodern community and high tech inclusive nationalisms.

Just as hippies in say, Indonesia, sell out and discover their own version of Reaganism, all of a sudden they see a trend coming their way from Japan that puts everything into question once more. Most human personality types can only psychologically handle and absorb so many paradigm shifts and trends in their lifetime (much less a decade).

This is why political platforms of the near future should be as broad and deep as possible. The material, psychological, and physiological nationalisms mentioned previously can be scaled up to the whole globe or scaled down to a small city. Lets review the MPP:

Material: (Land and key resources like minerals in the land are our collective commons and are to be managed by us as we democratically see fit)

Psychological: (We are all humans and have commonalities like need for self-esteem, autonomy, love, influence, etc. And these desires will be provided for via proper political representation and management of the collective commons)


Physiological: (We are all humans and have commonalities like need for water, food, shelter, and some material matter to manipulate with tools, turn into tools, etc. And these desires will be provided for via proper political representation and management of the collective commons)

These three obviously blend together and play off each other and are broad and deep enough to provide a common political platform for a majority of human personality clusters. A society can safely be federal, unitary, decentralized, part of a supranational unit, diverse, homogeneous, etc as long as these three nationalisms are emphasized politically. Cultural, ethnic, and value nationalisms will still exist and play a major role but unlike MPP they provide for major source of unhealthy friction. De-emphasizing them will be a major challenge and calling for word's elites in the decades to come (just as de-emphasizing and separating religion and state was for elites in centuries prior).


As could be guessed, mass infrastructure development is to play a major role in putting MPP to the forefront of popular attention and to make MPP possible. In essence, to create a new type of global "glue" that would hopefully go a long way to neutralize the frictions of Trend A and frictions between Trend A and B and to put the energy generated by these frictions towards productive use.

Although 21st century will be marked by top down elite emphasis on collaboration and cooperation, even competition can still be allowed to co-exist when it comes to infrastructural achievement. This would sublimate the psychological tendencies of more aggressive human personality clusters into a socially healthy mass effort. A way to think of this is a sort of "space race" right here on earth (example: "we beat them in building this amount of fourth generation vertical farm complexes!"). Ethnic, cultural, intergenerational, and inter-era differences will still manifest themselves in the types of infrastructure projects that communities build. And of course, in an awful potentiality of resource wars. More on that in a future article. Resource wars are serious business.

Super Summary: Infrastructure as key word and mantra so we don't forget why civilization is possible at all

Infrastructuralist focus is needed to make 3 new forms of healthier scalable 21st century unifying nationalisms possible (MPP). Infrastructure itself is scalable and can range from microcomunity level to planetary level. Infrastructure focus redirects the friction within Trend A and friction between Trends A and B towards productive efforts. Infrastructure pushes towards more informational sharing and friendly cooperation between communities that operate on different political scales and whose people live in different cultural "time periods".

Infrastructure sets short, medium, and long term national goals that pushes cooperation between different personality clusters and creates unity among them that doesn't stifle them on a personal emotional level. Having and building the means towards more energy, food, shelter, and resources is less disagreeable than national goals stemming from one dominant ethnic or cultural faction. In order for infrastructural focus to be had at all, short, medium, and long term goals need to be quantified and put out for the public to manage (example: quadrupling arable land within 20 years, eliminating a certain desert within 10 years, etc).

Finally, for these goals to be properly decided on and implemented, a major technocratic reform towards a more advanced proportional representation and direct democratic hybrid political system is to be undertaken.

Russian Legislative Election 2011: End of an Era

A now familiar scene in Northern Hemisphere

Since it has served its purpose of stabilizing and consolidating the 20 year old country, Putinism is officially on the decline. Its future, if it is to survive, is either coalition governance with communists or radical transformation towards long term construction of a post-scarcity societal model.





The ruling rich man's party in the Kremlin has just gotten badly egged in the face by suffering a 25% drop in the Duma. It is the first reversal for regime's party since a number of prominent robber barons created it in 1999 to support their macho puppet at the time (when Putin was successfully used to divert nation's attention from collapsing economy towards a secessionist terrorist threat). The history of United Russia's seats in 450 person Duma in 1999: 73, in 2003: 225, in 2007: 315, in 2011: 238.

It was to be expected that people would not go for a lukewarm quasi FDRist reactionary policy of United Russia during a paradigm shifting global economic downturn (some members of Putin's party have pictures of FDR on their walls for inspiration). Although survival and additional expenditures on welfare and social safety nets were enough to avoid Greek style riots, they were not nearly enough to maintain (much less gain) popularity.

While it may appear paradoxical that citizens may punish a regime that kept them afloat as some economies have imploded throughout Europe, it is not surprising given human psychology. Whenever the elites actually empower the wage slaves by growing the economic pie, the people get empowered (duh) to demand more and more (see 1960s United States and numerous blue collar worker strikes in China today). If there are sudden reversals that clash with ego expectations, the amounts of hatred released can be dramatic (note Beijing's fear of annual growth dropping to under 7.5%).

Thus the popular shift to the promises of a high tech welfare state that the Communist Party of Russian federation (CPRF) offers. Zyuganov's Communists expanded their delegation's representation in the legislative by a respectable 61%. It is no longer a secret that CPRF stopped being just a platform for nostalgic elderly. The youth are joining the party in droves out of genuine conviction as well as a protest vote. "Business as usual" within CPRF is changing by the month.

It is to be noted that the 3 main opposition parties (including CPRF) are only allowed to exist by the Kremlin in order to have an effective feedback mechanism from the people that wasn't present until 1991. This allows the financial and industrial cartels that rule the country to be relatively flexible, avoid stagnation, and respond to wage slave needs in a relatively timely manner.

If the emerging Chinese princeling leadership (comfortable soft children of the old guard) ever democratize towards party pluralism, it may be along these lines. Similar system of feed back also exists in Syria where pro-Assad party allows some minor friendly parties to openly express popular discontent within structured channels. Multi-party (more than 2) rich man's democracy may even come to places like United States in the years to come as it appears that the power elites in Washington DC have lost the ability to measure and comprehend the sheer levels of peasant hatred against them. One can imagine a controlled monkey like Kucinich being allowed a small political block so frustrations can be channeled and systematically co-opted.

Having said that, CPRF remains the most autonomous oppositional entity with greatest potential for unpredictable action especially if its aging leadership is suddenly replaced internally. Kremlin's strategists may find it necessary to dramatically increase or restructure their psychological, informational, and financial warfare and co-option approach towards CPRF. The leading theorist of Russian managed democracy and "brains behind the throne" Vladislav Surkov, already helped create a fake opposition center-left party Just Russia to try to drain votes from CPRF. The other fake opposition party Liberal Democrats (LDPR) does a marvelous job sucking in the less pleasant crypto-fascist and militarist elements of society (think a special party to catch and compartmentalize the Michele Bachman and Rudy Gulliani lovers).

Surkov's goal is to have one "steering" party rule for 30-50 years the way Sweden and Japan were in the second half of the 20th century. The tiny parties may even be allowed to become substantially more independent (if they continue to take small amount of seats that is..). This would allow implementation of 5,10,20, and 30 year economic plans. Unfortunately, some current long term plans are paper shuffling jokes (building financial center to rival London) rather than being tangible herd improving ones. An example of the latter is the Northern River Reversal water project which would really glue Central Asian and possibly Persian elites to Kremlin's leadership and provide enough regional jobs to neutralize the fires of Islamic radicalism being currently fanned by Anglo geopolitical strategists.

It will be interesting to see:

1) How Putin modifies his position before the presidential election in response to this pie on the face
2) If Medvedev will even stick around
3) Which one of the 3 smaller party gremlins the papa gremlin will choose to cooperate with the most.

There have already been signals that the militarist LDPR may be the ally of choice as Putin returns to foreign affairs duties next year. That is since there is the matter of taking advantage of shrinking perimeter of American empire and consolidating regional economic blocks (Eurasian NAFTA-esque entities) to help make Kremlin friendly corporations even more profit. When it comes to choosing allies for domestic policy however, things will get a lot more complicated as Internet literate population has sensed blood in the water after dealing Kremlin a broken nose.

Continuing decline of American influence may briefly boost the Kremlin for a short time. Ultimately however it would further and even more thoroughly discredit current form of Putinism which is basically intensely trying to copy what American empire did right in the 1950s-1970s period (vibrant soft power, incredibly cold and restrained diplomacy, attracting foreign investment, social democratic architecture, allowing sufficient democratic input to bypass oligarchs, becoming example for elites in poorer parts of the world, building cutting edge energy infrastructure, etc). CPRF as ruling coalition partner may be the only realistic choice for United Russia in the next few years as American neoliberal model continues to nosedive (occupy the Kremlin anyone?).

As much as some Western dissidents would like to see the desires of their own ruling imperialist Kleptocrats tempered by those in Beijing and Moscow, it is not the sort of strategy where the little people ultimately win. Imperialism from DC being replaced by economic imperialism from Berlin, Moscow, or Beijing is not what humanity needs to preserve social stability in the 21st century.

As of today, 4 political units stand out in terms of having the preconditions to provide leadership for the whole world. They are Germany and Japan (once they figure out a way to constructively end foreign occupations of their soil) and China and Russia. Japanese elites have the most high tech and egalitarian "human farm" to work with, China has the raw economies of scale to construct for large swaths of the world, Germany of course can lead in supranational integration, while Russia may be the first to demonstrate combination of democratic functioning and popular blatantly communist aspirations that are being rekindled daily. Those robber barons still buying London property (and thus political protection) understand this.

P.S. Once again, regional militarism born out of imperial power vacuum is to be avoided at all costs.

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).

Sound Money and Deflation

"With the enormous leaps in industrial productivity over the 20th century, shouldn't a penny now buy me at least 10 Snickers bars instead of nothing?" 

(Or how fiat money serves to prolong the life of capitalism while libertarians are ironically fighting to make capitalism disappear)


A great question, considering world's population rose 4.2 times from 1900-2010, annual copper mining output rose 30 times in same time period, and industrial/agricultural mass production technology (for making candy) has made exponential efficiency leaps. To investigate this serious matter lets look beyond the screams of "federal reserve and fractional lending robbed us all with depreciating overprinted fiat currency!" and delve into the underlining physical dynamics.

A one ounce Hershey's bar cost 3 cents (9 grams of copper) in 1918 whereas a 1.45 oz Hershey's bar in 1982 (last year to have 95% copper pennies) was 20.6 cents/62 copper grams per chocolate ounce. As of 2010, the Hershey's bar approximates 65 fiat cents an ounce but since the imperial authorities diluted the penny with mostly zinc (making current pennies a harder to quantify mix of zinc and copper), I'll use the 1918-1982 period for simplicity.

If one adjusts for inflation, 3 cents in 1918 is 19 cents in 1982 (539% depreciation in purchasing power). An 80 year old, lets call him Bob, getting his favorite childhood candy treat would have seen his under the mattress savings buy 6.3 less Hershey's chocolate. Now this may not seem too bad IF Bob was in a theoretical situation where his real income growth was pegged to inflation the entire life and his fiat currency grew in a bank under inflation pegged interest throughout the 20th century. Considering the candy's probable mild price buoyancy due to brand recognition, on the surface it looks like the company is only charging Bob 8% more than they did in 1918 (20.6 cents to 19).

Looking through an Austrian economics lens of inflation being an increase in the money supply, since most people do not have their finances perfectly adjusted to inflation, Bob is being continuously ripped off and impoverished via inflation tax. He may not get exactly 6.3 times less chocolate but even 2-3 less Hershey's towards the end of life is a criminal swindle.

A defender of the socioeconomic status quo in 1982 may partially agree but counter this via a pseudo-Austrian angle, "If anything Bob is lucky to only be paying 62 grams of copper per ounce instead of 9 grams in 1918 since copper is mined faster than people are breeding. He looks like he is getting a deal when using this depreciating physical metal! Copper is as fiat as paper!" (Authorities saw the copper content in penny spike more than a fiat cent in 1980-1981 period and thus changed the content, the price of copper in penny then collapsed to just under 1 fiat cent again in 1982-1984).

This is an interesting response and lets take a look at it without distracting ourselves with multitudes of other serious issues such as the government ending the use of silver in currency, going off the gold standard, stagnation of real incomes, etc. Some of these issues will begin to be resolved indirectly by the end of the article.

If one tries to look at Bob's situation via Marxist economics lens of commodity exchange, then we see that the poor fellow is being swindled in another way. This investigation is a little trickier considering technological productivity cannot be readily quantified and since the concept of productivity itself is culturally determined. What is very safe to say is that mechanical efficiency in producing an ounce of Hershey's has risen a lot more between 1918 and 1982 than the 260% rise of human population in same time period. That is, if copper production/demand magically froze in place, a 1982 Hershey's chocolate ounce should cost not 9 grams but substantially less. Surely, they've figured out ways to stamp out these chocolate treats by the millions in ways not dreamed of before (even taking into account employee salary operating expenses).

Of course copper dynamics were not frozen but they also end up benefiting Bob. If you consider the borderline exponential and evolving industrial demand for copper for electrical/water purposes throughout the 20th century, then it is clear that the 530% rise in copper production in 1918-1982 does NOT devalue 62 grams (needed to buy one 1982 Hershey's ounce) by half.

In other words, even though the copper money supply rose at twice the rate of human population, we did not see 100% inflation of the penny since the industrial demand for copper kept up pace with the human population at the very minimum. Therefore, a Hershey's bar ounce in 1982 should have cost at most 6 cents (1918 price * population growth) instead of 20.6 cents. Therefore, Bob doesn't just get ripped off through expansion of the fiat money supply but by value of goods not reflecting the breakneck pace in development of production and distribution of Hershey's bar. Considering a pre-1982 copper penny is approaching 3 fiat pennies in worth at the end of 2010 (and many countries having pulled copper from their currency in last 30 years), it may well be that a Hershey's bar should cost a lot less than a copper cent today. This makes more sense if one remembers that a silver dime from 1964 is worth over 2 dollars presently (even though annual silver output expanded 35 times in 1900-2010 period).

It appears safe to say that fiat currency was haphazardly introduced by business leaders in first half of the 20th century (via their political appointees) to prolong the life of capitalism via inflation. Ironically, the financial robber barons ended up doing the same thing that rural agricultural interests wanted in late 19th century America. 19th century saw various deflationary collapses and farmers wanted silver/gold bimetallism since rapid mining of silver would have introduced inflationary pressure on the dollar and thus prevented profit loss. Banksters 100 years ago were gold bugs since they made money from loans and deflation benefited the loan sharks. Since financial capitalist take over of industrial/agricultural capitalism was mostly complete by 1900, bankers tended to win political arguments.

During the great depression, there developed a compromise and some convergence of thought between financial, agricultural, and industrial interests concerning the benefits of inflation. Biggest bankers by that time, found a way to profit while expanding the money supply via modern money mechanics and farmers ended up getting governments to pay them to not produce too much and thus prevent deflationary profit loss. FDR managed to reconcile the key parasites, preserve capitalism, and artificially prolong the profit taking of major monopoly industries at the long term expense of the consumer (in a very humane developmental manner). Yes, he also did a lot of great things and is one of the kindest masters people saw in the last century (no sarcasm).

If the price of an 1982 Hershey's bar reflected the real amounts of hard money (commodity) availability PLUS availability of Hershey's ingredients (commodities) PLUS the cutting edge technological ability to produce and distribute the Hershey, then we'd see the company experience the periodic deflation born crisis of overproduction that the communist manifesto summarized. One can imagine what will happen to corporate bottom line if a copper/silver/gold/rare earth metal commodity money coin buys more consumer goods every year than the previous one. On paper, Austrian utopian capitalism is too efficient and benefits the consumer too much (so much in fact that it quickly implodes in deflationary collapse horror show, massive unemployment, and technologically driven socioeconomic evolutionary leap towards post-scarcity society).

It is little wonder that Trotsky sided with Austrian economists when he wrote of pre-requisites of United States going communist. They being commodity backed hard money utilized to barter for consumer goods. This is especially true for gold since gold production only rose 5.5 times in the 1900-2010 period, barely above population growth. Ironically, the current wave of libertarians are fighting to make capitalism disappear (since non-fiat currency would fully unleash the post-scarcity potential of means of production and distribution that have existed around us since at least the 1950s and that Buckminster Fuller and King Hubbert described in detail). I will leave with a few 1934 quotes from Leon Trotsky regarding the absolute necessity of ending the federal reserve. ;)



"-This system will be made to work not by bureaucracy and not by policemen but by cold, hard cash. 
-Your almighty dollar will play a principal part in making your new soviet system work. It is a great mistake to try to mix a “planned economy” with a “managed currency.” 
-Your money must act as regulator with which to measure the success or failure of your planning. 
-Your “radical” professors are dead wrong in their devotion to “managed money.” It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm. There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes. It is impossible to regulate wages, prices and quality of goods without a firm monetary system. An unstable ruble in a Soviet system is like having variable molds in a conveyor-belt factory. It won’t work."

Communist Manifesto Simplified

Key message of Communist Manifesto in a simplified graph form. Also a brief discussion on what to do about efficiency gains inevitably causing global unemployment. Hint: Heavy investment into nuclear power and robotics the way Japan is doing.

Communist manifesto simplified

As far as summaries go, the Communist Manifesto seems the most concise in the world. Adam Smith never had to write a summary for the thousands of pages that he wrote. Nietzsche prided himself as being able to put as much in a paragraph as some put in a book but he also never experienced the pressure to explain all of his thought in a small booklet (that is also accessible to a person who is middle of the road when it comes to education). Marx's brain must have come close to an aneurysm in this process. A case can thus be made that every sentence in the manifesto is qualitatively more filled with careful thought and information than even Nietzsche's Anti-Christ.

It appears that the only major message of the manifesto is that efficiency gains on a planetary scale are rising faster than the demand for new workers and it will thus lead to increasing poverty and starvation for the average worker of the world (and in turn to a pre-revolutionary situation). The definition of the proletariat appears to be anybody who is not making money off the super profit from capital investments. This includes most of Western suburbanites who are living paycheck to paycheck (even if it is 200,000 euros or dollars a year).


Globalization is accurately predicted as well as many of the rich becoming impoverished and falling down into the growing proletariat pool as companies at the top buy each other out and consolidate. This means that the proletariat has many former millionaires and thus draws upon their education and talents. Class consciousness becomes possible once white collar suburbanites realize that they are in the same boat as Chinese blue collar workers, rural McDonalds workers, etc.

I have not seen anybody effectively tackle the problem of efficiency gains causing ever rising planetary unemployment. Countries like France and Sweden address the issue by artificially creating jobs within the welfare sector (people coming to your house to take care of your kids) and blatantly unneeded and ridiculous jobs (such as bus controllers who go on buses to check if people bought a ticket). This cannot go on indefinitely as even the demeaning service sector will soon be competing with robotics. Situation would be even worse in the Western world if many were not employed in high tech military-industrial complex infrastructure.

Westerners need to stop entertaining ideas of 7 billion people all being white collar professionals selling art, management, and marketing schemes to each other. They need to get over the stigma of bringing up the serious difficulty raised in the Manifesto and start discussing ways to avoid potential for violence and instability in the future. Many of the power elites understand the process but are overwhelmed by elites with interests within the status quo. Historically one faction of power elites moves to overthrow the other to maintain their power if the alternative is losing all of it (see former communists in Soviet Union). However, it is too dangerous to just wait for some oligarchs to join the proletariat calls (out of a sense of self preservation) for a high tech welfare state that utilizes robotics.

Japan appears to be preparing for the future by making such incredible investment into robotics. They will be set to barter their older robotics for food and commodities in the future and have a welfare state that makes North Europeans green with envy. One way forward for Westerners appears to be state involvement in strategic sectors while allowing capitalism to flourish on a light industry level. Mass scale investments into robotics and nuclear energy would be key. Japan's goal is to have robotics 1/3 of their economy by 2030s. Lets have a friendly competition. Robotics as focus would also inevitably bring attention of replacement of human workers and thus more productive discussion about building socioeconomic structures in the 21st century.