Introduction

You will never achieve change by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, you need to build a new model that will render the current one obsolete.

Richard Buckminster Fuller

The genomes of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are estimated to be 97% to 99% similar. ^{The text for translation: [1].} Genetic differences between gorillas and chimpanzees do not lead to significant distinctions in social structure, intelligence, and culture. However, there is a vast chasm between humans and the higher primates.

The weak point of most utopias and anarchist movements lies in their misunderstanding of the nature of this chasm. It can be compared to the gap between different operating systems. You can install completely incompatible OSs on the same computer, differing as much from each other as human society differs from a herd of chimpanzees. By proposing to rewrite all the “software” from scratch, anarchists and utopians overestimate the role of the “hardware,” relying on concepts like cooperation, morality, or a sense of justice as if they are inherently present in every person from the start, rather than being instilled by society. Human society cannot exist without coercion in one form or another. Even if a person behaves consciously and altruistically, such behavior is still underpinned by a powerful apparatus of violence. To successfully defend against aggressive neighbors and, when the opportunity arises, to grab a bigger piece for itself, a state needs a strong army. And a strong army requires technological superiority, popular support, and wealth. These things are impossible without developed science, an efficient economy free from corruption and theft, and a maximally mobilized society. For this, a functioning justice system, universal education, and shared values and goals are necessary. Thus, by instilling high morality and civic consciousness from childhood, the state ensures its economic and military superiority. Schools are funded through taxes that are collected coercively. If necessary, parents are compelled to treat their children humanely and provide them with education under the threat of losing parental rights. If we were to abandon coercion today, tomorrow we would find that the gap between humans and chimpanzees is not so great after all.

On the other hand, it is possible and necessary to explore ways to soften and humanize methods of coercion, as long as it does not diminish their effectiveness. A significant part of humanity has already abandoned the death penalty. This was completely unthinkable a few hundred years ago. In the Stone Age, the primary method of coercion was simple and straightforward—just a club to the head, and no problems! Until someone else uses the same club on you. Today, instead of one powerful blow, we use dozens and hundreds of soft, almost imperceptible nudges and touches. A few words, a thin ribbon blocking a path, a colored light in a traffic signal, a bright picture in a magazine—all influence our thoughts and actions, subtly adjusting our behavior to meet the demands and desires of others. We respond in kind.

It is quite logical to assume that in the future we will continue to move in the same direction. Methods of coercion will become softer and more subtle, but there will be more of them, and they will be applied more frequently and broadly. From this assumption, two important conclusions follow. First, the cumulative effect of these influences will be stronger than that of episodic blunt force. It is known that the law is observed more strictly in those countries where it is quite possible to receive a fine for a piece of paper thrown next to a trash can, rather than in those where public executions are regularly staged. Second, the overall damage to individual freedom and well-being from these influences will be less. After all, if corrective measures are applied only occasionally, their intensity must be proportionally increased, which leads to a higher risk of side effects. It is obvious that a thousand small fines cause less harm than a bullet to the back of the head. Moreover, strong and infrequent measures can be easily controlled by a small group of people and used for criminal purposes, as any dictatorial regime or the stream of informational garbage on television brilliantly illustrates.

In this book, we have analyzed the vector of societal development. We believe we have identified a key factor that determines the conditions for the existence of various social formations. We have examined the present day, speculated about tomorrow, and envisioned the day after tomorrow. This book is dedicated to justifying the idea that society will inevitably move towards a new social formation based on the principles of mass cooperation. This will lead to an interesting effect—complete mutual transparency. We have named this proposed social order of the future “reckonism,” derived from the English word “reckon”—to calculate, to consider, to regard, to have an opinion. We believe that the primary method of self-organization and collective decision-making will be the continuous accounting of opinions from all competent and interested parties, rather than the creation of hierarchical structures where decisions are made solely by the elite. Technically, such accounting is feasible under the condition of universal informatization and informational transparency.

In principle, the widely accepted republican form of government today can be considered a nascent, primitive form of reckoning, where accounting is done every few years, the range of issues addressed by this accounting is very limited, and a primitive method of counting equal votes is used to make final decisions. Meanwhile, 99% of all decisions are still made by the hierarchical elite as if on our behalf. If we were to replace kindergarten-level arithmetic and manual ballot filling with modern computer networks and algorithms that take into account numerous factors affecting the weight of a vote, and do this continuously and universally, we could almost completely eliminate intermediaries in the form of politicians and bureaucrats. The words written in most constitutions around the world stating that the only source of power in the country is the people would cease to be mere words.

The necessity for transparency in such a model of societal governance arises from the demonstrated dispersion of coercive methods. For coercive influence to be effective, one must know where, when, and how to exert it. When the tools of coercion are in the hands of thousands of people rather than a single “all-knowing” leader or king, each of these thousands needs information. The more complete and accurate this information is, the more subtle, harmless, and humane the influence will be. Any secret can be revealed, and whoever uncovers it will hold a monopoly on certain methods of influence. And where there is a monopoly, there are also abuses. By hiding too much, we hand over the lever of influence to structures that we generally do not trust—intelligence agencies and corporations. At the same time, we block the possibilities for mutual control and coordination among ourselves and others like us. We are alienated from one another while being open and defenseless against officials and bureaucrats.

This is precisely why universal informatization is often perceived as a threat. However, simply rejecting everything new and potentially dangerous cannot be effective. By resisting any attempts to collect and use personal data, and by shielding ourselves from the outside world with anonymity and encryption, we create numerous inconveniences for ourselves. Most followers of “pirate parties” and anonymous cyber-activists criticize attempts by the state or “copyright extremists” to block the dissemination of any information, while simultaneously building similar defensive bastions around themselves. They seek to turn the unfair and potentially dangerous asymmetry of information transparency in favor of political and commercial elites to their advantage, when it would be more logical to eliminate it entirely. The modern ruling class wants to receive any information from us for free, yet they are in no hurry to share what they have with us. However, the desire to “download for free” anything from the latest Hollywood blockbuster to top-secret documents, while remaining anonymous and elusive, resembles an infantile wish to “take and share.” The asymmetry in access to our personal information must be eliminated. Complete transparency implies mutual transparency. Complex systems cannot function without feedback. It is necessary to control the controllers; otherwise, they will turn into “Big Brother.” But we must not remain unaccountable and irresponsible ourselves. The slave and the master are two sides of the same coin. A slave will not become free simply by swapping places with the master. Freedom requires mutual concessions and obligations, not the ability to spit on the heads of former masters with impunity. Without this mutuality, the development of information technologies can only lead to totalitarianism and inhumane dystopia.

You share everything about yourself on Facebook. With your online searches, it’s easy to find out what you’re looking for. It’s simple to determine which shows you watch and which books and movies you download. All your romantic text messages can be read, and all your conversations can be listened to (not just phone calls). All your comments are stored in the cache. Your phone transmits your location. Databases can reveal which of your containers from China is stuck in customs and that you haven’t paid two speeding tickets. Ubiquitous surveillance cameras and facial recognition software in crowds. All your preferences, from political to religious, are laid bare… and so on, right down to your collection of adult content and stains on your clothes.

Of course, it’s frightening. Big Brother is watching you. Everything is under control. You are both a trembling creature and have no rights. You are completely open, defenseless, and transparent in that Nabokovian sense of transparency. Moreover, while in “Invitation to a Beheading,” the main character at least had some semblance of choice: “From an early age, having miraculously sensed the danger, Cincinnatus diligently honed his ability to conceal a certain peculiarity. Not allowing foreign rays to penetrate, creating a strange impression of a solitary dark obstacle in this world of transparent souls, he learned to pretend to be permeable… but, in reality, Cincinnatus was impenetrable,” you are deprived of even that right. If necessary, they will find you from space. It seems there are three strategies in this situation:

—.Control everything. Not a byte goes unnoticed. Not a word out of place. All conversations are encrypted. Only aliases and dynamic IPs. Their hooves leave no trace.
—.Live completely openly. Speak only the truth. An honest person has nothing to hide. After all, it’s just a matter of habit. Not long ago, it was impossible to show a bare knee in public.
—.Don’t pay any attention to it. Who am I and who would be interested in my life?

But! When discussing the horrors of the impending openness, we must not forget the undeniable advantages. For instance, what seems to us to be greatly underestimated is that things much more important than money will emerge. This will be reputation.

Openness gives you a unique opportunity to choose which teacher to entrust your child to or which doctor to treat your parents. You will be able to read opinions from people who have encountered each specialist. There will be no anonymity— I, pensioner Zoya Ivanovna Chistyakova, was treated by this doctor for that diagnosis. Here are the test results, here are the treatment outcomes. A heartfelt thank you to him. Such testimonials will be highly valued. Decisions about the competence of employees will be made based on feedback, potentially leading to dismissal or a ban from the profession in severe cases. And any official will think twice before hinting at a bribe or sending someone for yet another useless certificate. In fact, the world will turn into a big village where everyone knows each other well— this is a great carpenter, just don’t give him an advance or he’ll go on a bender, and it’s better to stay away from this one. With the freedom of choice, reputation will become more important than money.

And the first to become completely transparent will be politicians and officials. Their responsibility is too great. Dmitry Chernyshev’s Blog

The phrase “full transparency” implies universality and integrity of the information field, rather than its absoluteness and totality. It is not at all necessary to install cameras in bedrooms and bathrooms, implant transmitters in the brain, or tattoo barcodes on foreheads. The degree of transparency and accountability should be sufficient for confidently tracking a person’s identity and reputation, facilitating everyday transactions, and nothing more. Today’s information environment is murky and opaque, with small islands of transparency in the form of individual communities or databases that are weakly connected to one another. Full transparency means the opposite situation—where the environment as a whole is transparent, but there can still be completely or partially opaque areas, as long as they do not disrupt the integrity of the transparent space or isolate its individual parts from one another. The same can be said about “full” decentralization. From both a technical and a political-economic perspective, total decentralization is not only unnecessary but also ineffective. Hybrid models work best. However, we believe that decentralized structures will play a leading role, while hierarchical ones should complement them and cover their weak points. For now, the opposite is often true. Just as industrialization did not completely eliminate agriculture, and the information society has not abandoned industry, reconism does not imply absolute horizontality in everything. It merely emphasizes that horizontal connections will become the main and most characteristic feature of future society.

Until now, the concepts of the “noosphere” or “global brain” have had a metaphorical or even mystical-religious character. We believe that in the near future, the noosphere will become a very real and concrete entity. Its material foundation will be computers connected in a global network. The main difference between this network and today’s Internet will be its integrity, based on open standards and decentralized technologies. For now, the Internet consists of many patches that are awkwardly stitched together. One of the authors even took the time to count the number of his accounts on various websites, payment systems, forums, and so on. Seventy-eight! And there are still dozens of information systems and databases that are weakly or not at all connected to the Internet—banking, governmental, municipal, and commercial. Take a look in your wallet: every discount and payment card is part of such a system. Every document, from your passport to the latest receipt from your housing office, is too. The process of integrating these systems has already begun; for instance, authentication using OpenID is becoming more widespread on the Internet, allowing one “main” account to access different sites without creating additional passwords and accounts. Most successful projects aimed at modernizing government or municipal apparatus have involved the integration and standardization of information systems. Estonia, one of the world leaders in such modernization, uses a decentralized system called “X-Road” to unify access to disparate public and private databases. When this approach becomes widely accepted, we will be able to speak of the noosphere as a daily reality rather than just a philosophical idea.

In the concept of reconism, everyone will be able to find their own:

• anarchists advocate for the abolition of the state and laws that contradict custom.
• totalitarians are the embodiment of ideological unity in society,
• monarchists — the realization of the idea of pure leadership and uniting people for a common goal, free from dirt and corruption,
• neomarxists — the use of the concepts of alienation and the collective unconscious,
• socialists — a real opportunity to plan the economy, that is, in some cases, to accurately determine demand before the production of goods,
• capitalists — complete freedom of entrepreneurship and the idea of the weight of one’s voice being dependent on their contribution,
• admirers of Plato — the idea of transparency and accountability of political elites,
• supporters of Popper’s idea of an open society — its extreme form, the “abstract society,”
• Libertarians represent a viable mechanism for society’s rejection of violence, as violence simply becomes unprofitable, and state violence becomes unnecessary.
• cyberpunk enthusiasts — a comprehensive computer model of reality, an electronic state, and William Gibson’s matrix, not the Wachowski brothers’.
• democrats represent true popular sovereignty and embody the ideals of the classical period of Ancient Greece,
• Republicans are an effective tool for avoiding the tyranny of the majority.
• intelligence agency workers are the embodiment of the dream of total control and “Big Brother” (and taking it to the absurd).
• Communists envision a system where money, as we know it today, does not exist.
• anti-globalists — the path to decentralization,
• globalists — ideas that unite the world,
• conspiracy theorists — yet another grimace of the world’s backstage. (Michelangelo’s “David” on the cover is intended by the authors to symbolize openness, the victory of a simple guy from the people over the aggressive militarist Goliath, and the further career of this guy as a wise and just king. But who knows what they might come up with? After all, David is Jewish!)

Reckonism can be viewed as a kind of sociological singularity, where, as mentioned above, supporters of different political views get what they wanted “all in one.”

* * *In the chapter “ From Herd to State “We outlined the history of social evolution and demonstrated that changes in the social structure have always occurred after a new key resource was established, allowing for control and subjugation. In the past, such resources included power, land, and capital.”

In the chapter “ Information as a Key Resource “The key resource of the modern world—information—and the main ways in which power uses the asymmetry of information for its own purposes are described.” The Sunset of Informism It discusses how the ruling elite is gradually losing control over information, the wikification of the economy, and the catastrophic consequences of hyper-centralization. We highlight a general trend in development and conclude that we are transitioning to a new social order—reconism—based on the wikification of the economy and power, transparency, and reputation.

Chapter “ The technical basis of reconnoitering. “dedicated to the material foundation of reconism — information technologies and computer networks. It demonstrates that the current level of IT development allows for the creation of an information system that is powerful and comprehensive enough to serve as the foundation for a new social order, and suggests possible approaches to implementing such a system. In the chapter…” Decentralization “We described methods of decentralized governance and decision-making that can be at least as effective as centralized solutions, but without their drawbacks. We explored the possibility of decentralizing many functions of the state, discussed how the financial system can be decentralized, and how anyone can engage in the issuance of money in the form of claims.”

In the chapter “ Society “We envisioned what society and morality will be like in the future, what will happen to crime, censorship, politics, the national idea, and what the new ruling elite will look like. We have supplemented our work.” Application where we talked about the already existing “bricks” that can serve as the foundation for reconism. If, while reading the book, you feel that the authors have lost touch with reality—open the app. Sometimes reality surpasses even the wildest fantasies.