Table of Contents
History of society
The fewer powers the royal authority has, the longer it lasts.
Aristotle
To paint a convincing and credible (as much as possible) picture of the future social order, it is essential to first look back at the past and trace the evolution of human society from its very beginnings to the present day.
By the time Homo Sapiens emerged, genetically established forms of social organization already existed—flocks of birds, schools of fish, swarms of insects, herds of antelopes, and prides of lions. [2]. However, for the first time in the history of the planet, humans were about to create extraordinarily stable and unusually large organized communities, based not on instinctive group behavior, but on culture, traditions, and laws—human-specific methods of self-organization and information accumulation.
In the beginning, there was the herd. The primitive human herd has been inherited from our ancestors and, in its structure, differs little from a herd of monkeys or a pack of wolves. However, the role of this form of self-organization is exceptionally important. It is the only one among all known forms that is embedded at the genetic level. When a dictator of a multimillion-state calls himself the “father” of every citizen, he is tapping into the dormant genetic programs within us for propaganda purposes. All nationalist, patriotic, or xenophobic rhetoric is built on these atavisms—”the blood of ancestors,” “homeland,” “the family of brotherly nations,” “alien,” “foreigners.” Time and again, at the level of the state, corporations, the military, the church, schools, and sports teams, images of a deity-forebear, the oldest and wisest founding fathers, or blood ties among community members resurface. Instincts are resilient, and in the coming centuries, they will not change one bit. Biological evolution is an extremely slow process. Millennia of social and cultural evolution are merely a light coating on the surface of the massive blocks created by biological evolution. To see how easily a typical primitive herd can form within a social group that has fallen out of the context of modern culture, one only needs to look at teenage gangs, the community of prisoners in a cell, or a barracks under the conditions of hazing. The very word “ded” (grandfather) transparently hints at the genetic basis of the informal military hierarchy.
Starting from the time when primitive tribes and clans united into larger formations—tribes and communities—a new mechanism of natural selection was set in motion: social evolution. This involves the evolution of cultures and methods of social organization. Although it has a completely different material basis—language, traditions, writing, and laws instead of DNA for storing and transmitting information, and inventions, discoveries, images, and ideas instead of mutations as sources of change—its mechanisms and patterns share the same nature. Just as there is no goal or direction in biological selection, no one plans the next stage of social development—this is the theory of the social contract. [3-5]. it now looks just as naive as the theory of intelligent design. [6]. Primitive people never came together and decided that it was time to unite into a tribe because it was more convenient and safer. It just happened that at some point, several clans, acting in concert and not attacking each other for some fleeting reasons or agreements, could easily overpower their neighbors and expand their living space. As a result, in all regions where such unions emerged, those clans that could not organize into tribes quickly died out or were pushed into hard-to-reach, isolated places—mountains, islands, jungles, deserts.
What served as the “glue” for such a union? To understand this, it is enough to compare a tribe to a community of animals, such as a lion pride. Members of the pride recognize each other by scent, appearance, voice, and movement dynamics. Similarly, members of a human tribe speak the same language and share a common cultural background, for example, tracing their lineage back to the same totem animal or mythical character. [28]. have similar rituals.
Language and the culture based on it, as more comprehensive and convenient tools for conveying information, became the first social glue. The development of human communication tools opened up more opportunities for recognizing fellow tribesmen, which attracted even more individuals into the fold and, in turn, required further improvement of communication within the growing group. The more complex the language became, and the more information accumulated in non-genetic repositories, the larger social structures could emerge, the richer their culture would be, and the more complex language and advanced communication tools they would need.
But one language alone was not enough to create a stable, large community. The primitive tribal community led a nomadic lifestyle. To feed several dozen hunters and gatherers, a territory of hundreds of square kilometers was needed. Encounters with other nomadic groups were rare and not very desirable, and the idea of maintaining stable communication or joint actions was out of the question. Everything changed with the advent of agriculture. Techniques for improving soil fertility and the first attempts at cultivating plants, initially just a way to slightly increase the efficiency of gathering (for example, the practice of burning dry plants before the rainy season led to the development of slash-and-burn agriculture). [7]. Over time, this allowed for a significant reduction in the territory needed for survival and a transition to a settled way of life. At this point, it became necessary to negotiate with neighbors.
These two processes—the development of language alongside the means of storing and processing information, and the increase in labor productivity through technological advancements—supported and reinforced each other, setting the historical momentum in motion. This allowed unremarkable primates to become the dominant species on the planet in just a few thousand years (a mere fraction of a second in terms of biological evolution!). The unification of kinship communities into tribes marked a qualitative leap in human development, making it possible for social structures to expand into chiefdoms and eventually states. Along with the enlargement of social structures, the foundation of intra-social relationships evolved, initially based on kinship, then on clans, and ultimately, with the formation of states, on classes and territory. The detachment from kinship and the expansion of society over larger areas involved more and more tribes, and later ethnic groups, into its structure. This led to the necessity of using multiple languages, enriching culture, and required (and was accompanied by the development of) information technologies. Most importantly, as social formations grew, officials who monopolized the right to power and information played an increasingly significant role in governance. [8]. The transition to each subsequent form of social organization (tribal community, tribe, chiefdom, state) occurs when it becomes possible to support the necessary number of people not engaged in production (initially one chief, then their entourage, followed by an increasingly large army of officials, which by the time states are formed has a developed multi-level structure) and when new varieties of informational “social glue” emerge (language, then myths and religion, followed by writing).
Another conclusion that can be drawn from studying the history of social evolution is, at first glance, paradoxical. In our culture, a hierarchical, pyramidal model of society has firmly established itself, one that is based on instinctive notions of “fathers.” It seems almost self-evident that those who have reached the top of the pyramid govern, make decisions, and that the prosperity or decline of the country depends on them. But is that really the case? The ruling elite are regularly carried out of their palaces feet first with a noose around their necks, their grand plans almost always end in failure, and wars and crises typically arise completely unexpectedly for them. Is this how they govern!?
They are more like surfers—some are more skilled, have a good sense of the wave, and don’t panic or do anything foolish—voilà! We have a “wise” and “far-sighted” king or president. Others flounder and fall, barely making it to the top, or stubbornly swim against the current, sometimes holding back the country’s development for decades—these are the “bad” leaders. In surfing, it’s clear that the one who confidently rides the crest of the wave is not controlling the wave in any way. They simply know how to be on top at the right moment and stay there as long as possible. In the case of society, we still don’t know all the laws that govern the emergence and movement of “waves.” Therefore, if a leader’s orders are strictly followed, their projects and campaigns are invariably successful, and their enemies suffer disgraceful defeats, we tend to see this as their personal achievement. There is indeed merit, but it lies in their ability to read the situation well and simply not giving orders that cannot be fulfilled, not starting projects that cannot be completed, and not trying to fight an enemy that cannot be defeated. In other words, they don’t push their luck and don’t interfere with the situation’s natural development. They simply identify and amplify the trends that are brewing in society. They feel the wave.
This is especially evident from a distance. It’s possible that the ordinary members of the Mumbo Jumbo tribe revered their leader and firmly believed that their lives and future depended on his decisions. If we consider only the short-term perspective, there is some truth to this. However, after several thousand years, it is clear that it was not the leaders who played the most significant role in the lives of the descendants of Mumbo Jumbo, but rather the unknown farmers, craftsmen, and hunters who, generation after generation, improved their tools and techniques.
Today’s descendants are far from being unknown, but still, far fewer people remember their names compared to those of kings and military leaders. For instance, three specific individuals—Edward Jenner, who developed the smallpox vaccine; Alexander Fleming, who discovered antibiotics; and Norman Borlaug, the father of the “Green Revolution”—have saved (and continue to save, despite all three being deceased) more lives than all the “great commanders” of all time combined have taken. When discussing the role of individuals in history, we often overlook those who truly deserve recognition. Electricity, the automobile, and the computer have changed the world far more profoundly than any war or coup d’état.
Alexander the Great is remembered as a conqueror, but his empire survived him by only three years, failing to exert a significant influence on the culture of the peoples he “subjugated.” The Ptolemies, who ruled Egypt after Alexander, were Greeks, yet they never learned to depict Egyptians in profile. Napoleon was successful until he continued eastward out of momentum. Hitler simply destroyed his own country, while the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, won the war more in spite of the leader and his systemic expressions of will than because of him. Moreover, the post-war histories of the USSR and Germany had little correlation with who actually reached the enemy’s capital.
The consolidation of social structures and the emergence of kings and leaders were driven by technological advancements and increased labor productivity. As is often the case, evolution seized the first available piece of material and stuck it roughly in the right place. In the course of societal evolution, this piece turned out to be the chieftains and leaders of human groups. Their primary activities have always been plunder and war, but they also managed to handle the construction of irrigation systems and roads, albeit with some difficulty.
It turns out that the success or failure of a ruler and the country as a whole depends not only on the personality of the person at the top but also on the “wave.” The key figures who truly shape history can occupy high or low positions in the hierarchy, or even exist outside of any hierarchies. No matter who is at the top, the wave will come; the only difference is whether the country can ride the wave and swiftly outpace its competitors, or if it will be washed ashore, battered and pitiful, many years after the wave has receded. The more frequently the waves come, the more often power needs to change hands; otherwise, the country is doomed to forever flounder somewhere at the bottom. This is why the modern model of democracy, with relatively frequent and regular changes in power, the fragmentation of that power into competing branches, and the expansion of rights and freedoms for each individual, has proven to be more successful in a rapidly changing world. Whereas in the era before industrial and scientific revolutions, several generations could pass between two waves, and lifetime absolute power had little impact on this, today this model is clearly slow and ineffective. The USSR or North Korea are excellent examples of this.
The dominance of representative democracies in today’s world leads to another important conclusion. A purposeful and rational search for solutions eventually surpasses blind natural selection. The wheel is faster than hooves, and the airplane is faster than birds. The artificial distribution of the burdens of power among a larger number of people, its decentralization in a democratic state, is much more effective than the monarchies or tyrannies that arose naturally.
Modern politicians are often criticized for their tendency to plan only until the next election, while a young monarch or dictator with a lifetime rule is more inclined to think decades ahead. In reality, however, the opposite seems to be true. Pharaohs spent enormous resources on utterly useless pyramids, while today’s short-lived presidents oversee the construction of giant skyscrapers, dams, and factories. Why is that? Could it be because they “reign but do not rule”? Is it possible that a useful function of power, such as coordinating the efforts of many people for a common cause, can be achieved without its involvement? Perhaps the key role in building pyramids, dams, and ships was played not by kings and ministers, but by engineers and inventors?
Perhaps now, for the first time in human history, the development of science and technology has reached a level where a single center of control is no longer necessary? Society may be able to self-organize, finally discarding the remnants of centralized authority, which, like a fly banging against glass, instinctively strives to “strengthen the vertical,” just as alpha males do in a herd.
Almost all specific decisions are now made not by ministers and deputies, but by advisors and experts. The times when the tsar personally built a navy are long gone. Modern society is too complex to be managed by just a few hundred professional functionaries. They have to be tolerated, as until recently there was essentially no way to quickly develop a competent collective decision on any issue. In such conditions, having a “leader” who made all the decisions alone sometimes allowed for the right move to be made and to “catch the wave.”
Now, with the advent of the Internet and affordable powerful computers, the task of creating a system capable of coordinating the actions of large groups of people in real time no longer seems like a utopia. So why do we even need presidents and parliaments? In each specific area, decisions should be made by a situational leader who can sense the “wave.” Experience shows that the lack of guarantees for holding power for a long time has more advantages than disadvantages. The wide opportunities for abuse that come with lifetime unlimited power significantly outweigh the benefits of long-term planning. Moreover, the very possibility of such planning is questionable. Thanks to transparency and a reputation tracking system, “the country will know its heroes,” and the heroes will understand this well, so none of them will sacrifice long-term success for immediate gain.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. Before moving on, it is worth taking a closer look at the evolution of the state as the dominant form of social organization in our time.
How the social structure changes
People who boasted about having made a revolution always found out the next day that they didn’t know what they were doing—that the revolution they had brought about was nothing like the one they had intended to create.
Friedrich Engels
The state has also gone through several stages in its development, or, using Marx’s terminology, social-historical formations. [9]. Marxism identifies five main formations: primitive-communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, and communist. The communist formation hasn’t quite materialized, but the first four appear quite convincing. Considering that in the social sciences it is difficult to pinpoint a single correct approach, especially regarding classification and periodization—which are artificial simplifications of a continuous and ever-changing world—we will take the risk of using Marx’s ideas, making a brief digression beforehand.
Those who remember the history textbooks of the Soviet era recall the significant emphasis placed on revolutions, particularly bourgeois and socialist ones. The theory of societal change through revolution provided a solid ideological foundation for the Bolshevik coup of 1917. As a result, there is often confusion between the broader interpretation of the term “revolution” as fundamental qualitative changes in any field (such as scientific or ideological revolutions) and the specific case of revolution as a coup d’état. [13]. A coup or political revolution does not always entail a change in the system, meaning a social revolution. Conversely, significant socio-economic changes often occur without any riots or uprisings.
For example, in France in the year of the Bastille’s storming, there was everything but a change of regime. The events in France can be characterized as a hungry revolt against well-fed aristocrats and capitalists, as capitalist relations had already developed there long before all these events began. [10]. Текст для перевода: ..
On the other hand, it is impossible to link any specific uprising to the transition from a slave-owning system to a feudal one. [11]. No one observed any upheavals during the transition from pre-war capitalism to the “new” version from the late 20th to the early 21st century. [12]. , which, in essence, is no longer capitalism at all, since capital has long ceased to be the resource through which the ruling class engages in exploitation.
Instead, we were told about the bourgeois revolutions, with examples from the Netherlands, France, and England (while conveniently ignoring other countries), drawing from these “bourgeois revolutions” the inevitability of socialist ones.
What really happened during the bourgeois revolutions? In one way or another, what we call a “revolution” was not actually a “class struggle.” It was either the Dutch uprising against the Spanish crown. The text for translation: [14]. or religious disputes over who is more important in England [15]. the king or parliament, or a hungry revolt in France. All the political institutions that were introduced — the constitution, republican governance, parliament — either already existed, were borrowed from neighbors, or, interestingly, were pulled from the dusty shelves of history and held up as examples. Republican governance at that time was a step backward, not forward. It was a return to the classics, to Rome, to Greece. Moreover, even before the revolutions, there were production relations that undermined the power of the feudal lords and made them a non-exclusive class. [16]. Текст для перевода: ..
How could the rebels have known, before the theoretical framework of social development emerged, what kind of system should be established after the revolution? How can something entirely new, which did not exist before, form in the collective consciousness? Not to mention that the very term “collective consciousness” is quite artificial. Marx had to work with the concept of “class consciousness,” but in practice, it turned out to be absent, and neither workers nor peasants possess any such “consciousness.” [17]. The problem of mobilizing society was addressed by V. Lenin in his work “What Is to Be Done.” [18]. The only correct approach is to organize small, covert groups that influence the rest of the population. However, even if the masses were somehow mobilized, where did the leaders of the masses draw their inspiration from? Historians simply classify various upheavals as “revolutions,” which lead to a sharp change in the social order.
Both the organizers and the executors of the October Revolution had no idea what they were doing. They believed they were building “communism” according to Marx’s teachings. In reality, they established state capitalism. Capital remained a tool of exploitation. Workers were paid wages. Material gain was the main incentive. Bureaucracy, ridiculed by Gogol and Chekhov, managed the resources. However, this was the first attempt to steer the course of the revolution towards what seemed to be a conscious goal. This direction was aided by propaganda, something that had never existed before and would continue from that time onward.
True social revolutions have always taken a long time, and the people living through periods of change often do not recognize the revolutionary nature of those changes. By all indications, we are currently facing a new revolution. Do we notice it? Most likely not. The awareness of what has happened and what has changed will come to humanity only after the transformation, not during it. This book is intended to reveal that future day. It allows us to view today’s revolution from tomorrow’s perspective, helping us understand what is really happening, what to be wary of, and what to accept without resistance.
The modern ruling class
One of the greatest threats to humanity today is that it may be suffocated by a rapidly growing yet well-disguised bureaucracy.
Norman Borlaug
Every social revolution has been triggered by changes in the productive forces. Scientific and technological progress allowed food to be produced with fewer and fewer hands, which meant that society could afford to support layers of people not engaged in food production—artisans, and eventually those not involved in production at all—such as the army, aristocracy, and clergy.
The capitalism that replaced feudalism, with its principle of capital exploitation, simply allowed society to acquire yet another non-productive layer, by saving human resources not only in food production but also in industry.
Modern society cannot be called “pure” capitalism at all. It is “regulated” capitalism. This raises an interesting question: who regulates it? The current system is distinguished from capitalism by the presence of another ruling class that stands above the capitalists — the bureaucracy.
Here and hereafter, the term “official” will refer not only to government employees but also to hired corporate management. Officials have existed for a long time, but it is only now that their purely executive function has transformed into an operational one. Officials have the power to close and open businesses, redistribute material goods, gain exclusive access to resources, and be the primary beneficiaries of any corrupt or lobbying system.
Officials, taking advantage of their power, secure their rights and privileges, manage other people’s property, write laws in their favor, and even pass down their class status as an inheritance. “Can a colonel’s son become a general? – No. Because the general has his own son.”
Who provides money to officials, and who funds their apparatus? Capitalists, shareholders (the so-called owners), and other people. How does this happen? Money comes in the form of taxes, which are used both to maintain the apparatus itself and to pay for government procurement. Despite the developed legislation on tender procedures, these procurements are carried out in a completely non-transparent manner and favor those making certain decisions—officials. Shareholders of corporations also pay money to officials. This includes direct payments in the form of salaries and bonuses to management, the growth of which is often completely unrelated to the actual success of the companies. Corporate officials, just like government ones, have separate and substantial earnings by procuring various goods or services for the corporation.
Who depends on officials? Everyone. It’s not wise to quarrel with this class. Who do the officials depend on? No one. All the signs of a ruling class are evident.
You are reading this text in Russian and trying to apply the conclusions drawn here to the former USSR. However, such a system exists everywhere, including in countries with developed corporate capital. Never before has an assistant to a mayor of a small town had as much authority, privilege, and real power as they do now.
Look at who owns the most expensive cars, who flies on private jets, and who has privileges enshrined in laws or corporate bylaws, and you’ll see it all clearly.
We have developed a new social order and a new ruling class. Officials and managers control the army, police, tax system, money, finances, and even every individual. This system began to take shape with the emergence of the first totalitarian regimes like “socialism” or Nazism, when the state apparatus came to the forefront of society.
The new ruling class, which has come to power through its ability to manipulate information and profits from creating asymmetries in information, is capable, for the first time in human history, of carefully concealing its privileged position by controlling information flows. Why openly show others that you are a vampire and a bloodsucker? Especially since existing laws are clearly against corruption. It’s better to continue pretending that everything is stable and calm. However, the time when the entire information flow could be in the hands of the ruling class is coming to an end, and that is good news.
Currently, any developed society is in a state of this social structure. Some refer to it as netocracy. [12]. We believe it is more appropriate to name it after the key resource that serves as the source of power — informism.
The question that Marx did not answer.
Karl Marx, while developing his theory and describing the revolutionary nature of the change in social order, was unable to define a universal mechanism through which one social structure is replaced by another. [19]. Текст для перевода: ..
When considering a particular society, it is important to remember that it is not abstract, and people mobilize solely for the sake of achieving a common good. If being part of a group does not provide any additional benefit to the individual, they will likely ignore their participation in it. Therefore, when we talk about any groups, we should always identify the common good, the shared resource that is collectively utilized by that group.
When it comes to the residents of the building, shared use of, say, an elevator is more cost-effective than each person buying their own personal lift. Although this shared use incurs not only the costs of the elevator itself but also expenses related to the bureaucratic apparatus established to collect contributions and manage the costs associated with “freeloaders.” [20]. — those who evade paying fees but continue to use the elevator. Moreover, this device is not always effective. Sometimes, to make the debtor pay, it is necessary to engage very cumbersome bureaucratic mechanisms, even going to court. Meanwhile, the problem can be elegantly resolved without involving bureaucrats by installing paid elevators. [21]. that simply cannot be accessed without a special card, meaning the transformation of a public resource into a personal one through the use of information technology. Later, we will see many more examples of how information technology makes bureaucracy unnecessary.
In every social system, the ruling class is called “ruling” because it has exclusive access to a certain key social resource. This defines the relationships within society and the methods of governance. It also determines the focus of society’s efforts. If the ruling class needs to acquire more of this key resource, the entire society addresses this issue, guided by the will of the ruling class.
The social structure changes precisely when the key resource changes. A new resource emerges in society because it allows for the management of the old key resource, rising to a higher level of abstraction in relation to some fundamental resource, such as food. A new key resource can only thrive if it is easier and less costly to manage than the previous resource.
For example, if we look at the Persian Gulf as a resource that is of interest to geopolitical analysts, we will understand that it is important not for its own sake. [22]. The Persian Gulf is a transportation artery for oil tankers carrying Middle Eastern oil to consumers around the world. Thus, whoever controls the Persian Gulf controls the oil. There is no need to have a military presence in every oil-producing country in the region. It is enough to have a fleet in the Gulf itself. In other words, the Persian Gulf is a resource at a higher level of abstraction in relation to oil. Oil itself is also a resource at a higher level in relation to fuel, for example. And the fuel produced from oil powers the engines of tanks, planes, and ships. Therefore, whoever controls the Persian Gulf controls the armies of other countries.
Now let’s look at the next level of abstraction. It turns out that the key resource controlling everything that happens in the Persian Gulf is the Strait of Hormuz. There’s no need to maintain a fleet throughout the entire Gulf; it’s sufficient to ensure a military presence in the Strait of Hormuz.
However, the Strait of Hormuz is not just a body of water; it is a collection of islands. [23]. through which the shipping channel is laid. The islands themselves are far more unsinkable than any aircraft carrier and, like aircraft carriers, are equipped with runways, weapons, hangars, and military garrisons. This means that whoever controls these islands controls up to 40% of the world’s maritime oil transport flow and, consequently, controls the global economy.
These islands belong to Iran. From this perspective, it becomes clear why the relationship between the US and Iran is quite tense.
So, now that we understand the role played by a key resource and the role that a new key resource begins to play at the next level of abstraction, we will be able to trace how the social structure has changed from one social formation to another.
Of course, it’s important to start with food, water, air, warmth, and access to members of the opposite sex—basic resources necessary for human survival. However, none of these are public resources, and society cannot form around them. Food, water, and warmth are resources that individuals could gather for themselves. If there is an inexhaustible source of food or water—like a palm tree or a river.
However, it so happened that some resources are limited and are not always abundant. For a society to exist sustainably, it is necessary to create reserves and, accordingly, storage facilities. Seed, food, and water reserves, barns, and wells became the first communal resources. These are resources that are not cost-effective to maintain alone, but are very convenient to form and exploit collectively. Even bees have “figured this out.”
When a grain storage facility burned down in one of the communities, the community was forced to raid a neighboring one and seize its supplies. This laid the groundwork for the creation of the next social resource—defense. Everyone banded together to defend against enemies or, conversely, acted collectively to take food from their neighbors. Eventually, it became clear that instead of foraging and gathering food, one could live by plunder. Thus, the next key social resource emerged—militia, and the ruling class became the militia members themselves. Naturally, this led to a change in the social order. Egalitarianism was replaced by the first kleptocracy in history. [8]. Текст для перевода: ..
Now, using the logic outlined above, we will try to trace how the key resource has changed as humanity transitioned from one formation to another. The division of history into formations is quite conditional, as the relationships characteristic of a specific formation can, in one way or another, also be found in other formations. [24]. For example, finance, as a system of relationships, has existed since ancient times. [25]. The very concept of “capital” originated in Ancient Rome (from the Latin capitalis — principal, main property, principal sum). At the same time, slavery, which is so characteristic of the slave-owning system, still exists in one form or another today. [26,27] Even if we take societies that are comparable from a historical perspective—such as the collection of Greek city-states—no typology can encompass the full diversity of city-state forms of governance. For instance, in terms of political structure, city-states established regimes of moderate or extreme oligarchy, as well as moderate or extreme democracy. It is likely that there were no two “twin city-states” in Hellas. [28]. The classical ancient Greek society is more likely characterized as tribal, enriched by the use of writing, rather than purely slave-owning.
Moreover, the method of developing the key resource shown below is not exclusive but predominant. For example, in the case of pure slavery, the number of slaves initially increased only through raids on neighboring territories, but over time, all other sources combined (especially in developed slave societies) provided more slaves than military actions did. [29]. The expansion of territory, the scale of land ownership, and the need for greater mechanization of labor became prerequisites for a change in the social structure. Landowners rose to the top of the social pyramid. Whereas before, the military exploited or even simply robbed landowners, they later began to hire armies. Yes, in both cases, money flows from the landowner to the military, but the paradigm itself shifts. Similar analogies can be found in each subsequent transition from one formation to another:
- During the era of slavery, tyranny was the dominant form of governance in the world, and the ruling class was represented by a military aristocracy. Even in Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic, democratic practices were limited to a privileged minority. Ancient democracy was more of a remnant of tribal councils of elders and was gradually supplanted by the autocratic rule of tyrants and emperors. The economy, based on the slave labor of war captives, required a constant influx of fresh labor. Slaves were initially acquired through warfare and later reproduced within the country. Tyranny employed methods of governance that included the right to kill or use physical violence against subordinates. Information technology was very rudimentary; information was transmitted either orally or, with the development of writing, in written form, but the concept of reproducing written material was not yet in play. Constant expansion led to an increase in territory, which in turn provoked the emergence of large landowners capable of defending their holdings by hiring their own armies. From that time on, initiative shifted from the army to the landowners, as a large army could no longer sustain itself, and supplying large armies with food became a key task for military strategists. [30]. In these conditions, whoever controlled the supplies controlled the army, and initiative gradually shifted to the large landowners. The slave system was replaced by feudalism. Thus, the expansion carried out for military plunder led to the military ceasing to be the ruling class.
- During feudalism, tyranny was replaced by monarchy, accompanied by complex forms of vassal relationships. The ruling class was represented either by landowners or, in arid regions, by owners of water sources. Society, as before, was governed through direct violence; however, due to its ineffectiveness at this new stage of development, violence was gradually replaced by material incentives and religious propaganda that instilled obedience and humility before worldly authorities in exchange for posthumous rewards or heavenly harmony. New lands became the key resource. At this time, raiding neighbors became increasingly costly, so land not occupied by similarly armed feudal lords was needed. The very act of arming required a corresponding technical base—crafts and manufactories began to emerge. There were more artisans and merchants. Monetary relations began to develop. Initially, money was in gold, which was gradually replaced by gold certificates, such as Templar notes, and then the first banknotes appeared. Merchants required increasingly sophisticated transportation, which, in turn, allowed feudal lords to acquire new lands through geographical discoveries. The complexity of the economy and technologies demanded a growing number of literate people and books. The printing press emerged. The remoteness of new colonies required advanced logistics and a developed trade system, the necessity for constant geographical discoveries, monetary and then financial relations, manufactories, and later factories that displaced solitary artisans made feudal lords dependent on those capable of maintaining a fleet, a factory, or a bank. Capital emerged that was not tied to land, along with a capitalist class upon which feudal lords now depended. Thus, trade, production, finance, and geographical discoveries, which developed for the benefit of the feudal lords, led to the point where they ceased to be the ruling class.
- The capitalist economy, based on industry and finance, relied on oligarchic governance of the state. Gradually, the role of the church as a tool for managing society diminished. Protestantism shifted the focus from submission to authorities and hierarchy to work ethic and individualism. Material incentives thrived, and with the emergence of mass media, mass propaganda began to take shape. The development of finance allowed for the concentration of increasing capital, which facilitated the scaling up of production, benefiting from economies of scale. The accumulation of wealth required a change in the foundation of monetary relations, and gradually gold-backed notes were replaced by abstract paper money. Capitalism ushered in the industrial revolution, fueled by the advancements in information technology. Advanced printing, mass media, and later the telegraph and telephone enabled people to exchange information on a global scale and invent new machines, tools, and devices for the benefit of capitalists. Industrialization allowed capital to produce more goods per unit of investment. The automation of industry, the acceleration of the circulation of working capital, and the development of information technology and communication made capitalists dependent on the managers they hired, who were able to secure privileges and ensure asymmetrical access to information, including information about the quality of management of entrusted capital. The same dynamics occurred at the state level. Initiative shifted from capitalists to information managers. Thus, the formalization of management, the informatization of production, the development of document flow, and the increasing role of mass media—conducted in the interest of capitalists—led to the point where capitalists ceased to be the ruling class.
- In the 20th century, a new social order began to take shape, which we called “informism,” while one of the leading sociologists of our time, Manuel Castells, referred to it as “informationalism.” [31]. A system in which the bureaucratic elite or netocracy is the ruling class and controls capital. Bureaucrats decide what, when, and how to finance. They divide the profits of corporations and tax revenues in the country. Gradually, as the wealth of the people grows, the management paradigm shifts from stimulation to increasingly relying on motivation and manipulation. The first sprouts come from an even newer management paradigm—co-participation. The economy becomes increasingly dependent on finance, and the centers of business activity shift from production to banks, insurance companies, and exchanges. Abstract paper money is almost completely replaced by even more abstract account entries and electronic money. In a number of countries, services become the main part of the gross product, allowing for the discussion of a post-industrial economy. Among these services, information services begin to dominate: legal, brokerage, consulting, auditing, logistics, analytical, marketing, educational, design, media, and so on. Information becomes the key resource. He who possesses information—possesses the world. What and how to invest? What, where, and how much does it cost? Who said what to whom? What is the design? What are the sales volumes? What are the competitive positions? How much product is in stock? Global corporations demand higher quality information exchange, leading to informatization. Telex, telefax, then computers with email, and finally, the Internet were in demand by corporations. Goods acquired barcodes and then unique serial numbers. Technologies for total accounting are developing, from supermarket customer databases to video surveillance systems with complete coverage of city streets.
The accumulation of vast amounts of information and the rapid decrease in the cost of processing it allow those without power to access information about authority and to monitor it. In the information space created for the needs of informants, virtual social networks are developing. Here, people share information that was previously monopolized by those in power. Propaganda ceases to be effective. The world shrinks to a “global village.” Information becomes dependent on the reputation of its source. A single post on a social network can now bankrupt a corporation. Initiative is gradually shifting from informants to those who build reputation—wiki communities and social networks. Thus, the informatization carried out for the benefit of netocrats has led to a situation where power has begun to lose its monopoly on information, something history has never seen before.
Main trend
If we look at the evolution of governance methods, we will see a trend towards an increase in the size of the ruling elite. This is primarily facilitated by the development of technologies that:
- allow for feeding more people engaged in the distribution of public resources;
- they create new public resources that require additional administrators to manage them (for example, with the advent of sewage systems, there was a need for people to manage, build, and maintain them in working order);
- reduce transaction costs [32]. The emergence of writing allowed for the documentation of decisions made by group governing bodies and, along with the development of roads, facilitated rapid communication among a large number of officials who were far apart. The advent of the telephone, typewriters, and copying technology amplified this effect, while the role of the internet as a modern tool that reduces costs and enables collaboration among people, regardless of distance and the number of participants, is almost impossible to overestimate.
Transaction costs are expenses that arise in connection with the conclusion of contracts (including the use of market mechanisms); they are costs associated with the relationships between economic agents. They can be categorized into
— costs of collecting and processing information,
— the costs of conducting negotiations and making decisions,
— costs of control,
— costs of legal protection for contract enforcement.Transaction costs are a result of the complexity of the surrounding world and the limited rationality of economic agents, and they depend on the coordination system in which economic operations are conducted. [33]. Excessively high transaction costs can hinder economic activity. Social and governmental institutions (such as exchanges) help reduce these costs through formal rules and informal norms.
Transaction costs are a central concept in neo-institutional economics. [34]. and the theory of transaction costs. Ronald Coase, conducting a thought experiment describing an economy without transaction costs, demonstrated that in such a case, the role of social institutions becomes irrelevant (and, consequently, economic formations become irrelevant) because people can agree on any beneficial solution without costs. [35]. Текст для перевода: ..
Scientific and technological progress enables fewer people to manage larger groups. This is facilitated by the development of communication, infrastructure, mathematics, and the invention of control systems such as personal documents, passports, and registration. Advances in weaponry allow a smaller number of armed individuals to control a greater number of unarmed ones. Additionally, the accumulated experience of standard solutions plays a significant role.
But everyone dreams of being part of the ruling class. The quality of life, and consequently the opportunities for reproduction, are greater for the ruling class, and it will continue to grow in number. The individuals within it will find their place as long as the excess production generated by the activities of society, thanks to scientific and technological progress, allows for it.
Thus, the ruling class has a size that society can afford thanks to scientific and technological progress. Extrapolating this trend, one can assume that sooner or later a social formation will emerge where the ruling layer of society will overwhelmingly outnumber the exploited layer. The extreme point of this process is characterized by the absence of subordinate classes. When everyone has a direct influence on decisions regarding where and how to spend public funds. The new ruling class rises above the previous ruling class and exploits it by managing a new resource necessary for the development of the resource owned by the old ruling class.
It is also important to track the evolution of means of exchange. When a key controlling resource rises to a new level of abstraction, the means of exchange also transition to a new level. This marks a shift from a material basis of money to abstract paper money and account entries. The key resource itself develops in a direction that benefits the ruling class. If feudal lords need more land, they begin to sponsor expeditions to search for new territories. The desire to develop the key resource stimulates progress and gives rise to a new resource that the ruling class needs to advance the old one. The managers of the new resource rise above the ruling class, as they control the resource that belonged to the previous elite.
The transition of control over a key resource to a new level of abstraction increasingly distances the key resource from human physical power over other people and from physical resources, the necessity of which is determined by human needs. Accordingly, the methods of mobilizing society—methods of governance—are also changing. They are becoming softer and evolving from direct violence to stimulation, manipulation, and further to mass cooperation.
There is a temptation to continue the list of social structures mentioned above. If it is beneficial for today’s ruling class… [36]. If we develop informatization, we can assume that reputation will become a new key resource in relation to information. It can be suggested that the new ruling class will consist of communities of independent individuals united in a cloud of mass collaboration, which will be governed not by stimulation or motivation, but by participation. We can anticipate further abstraction of money and the development of peer-to-peer finance. Seeing this perspective, we will now dedicate a significant portion of the book to demonstrating that this is indeed what society is striving for, as well as describing the consequences of the emergence of this new formation.
Thus, the answer to Karl Marx’s question about the mechanism of social structure change is that a new formation is based on the resources established by the old formation. It is the development of a key resource for the existing ruling class that creates the need for a new resource, the ownership of which regulates the ruling class’s access to its key resource.
The story resembles “The House That Jack Built”: the army is engaged in expansion and protecting the territory for landowners who depend on capitalists (industry and finance), who in turn rely on informants-netocrats (corporate and state bureaucracy), who increasingly depend on the cloud of mass collaboration from active and independent professionals—experts, scientists, journalists, artists, and bloggers.