posted on Apr, 1 2020 @ 05:38 PM
Didn't the pinnacle of Trotsky's argument essentially boil down to a socialist society couldn't work by developing itself, that only through the
pinnacle of a capitalist society can you achieve a truly working socialist society?
The problem is, he never explained how that works (because he didn't know), or suggest the mechanism needed for the pinnacle of a capitalist society
to transition to a socialist society.
When we look at the problem from "inside" a capitalist society we can't imagine a socialist society ever working... all we see is our capitalist
future projections either peaking out, dropping off or generally not working.
The pressure valve for these impossible projections traditionally has been war. A war flattens all of the economic and social curves, but also
generates predictable growth projections after the war (war in itself is a somewhat predictable decline), meaning the capitalist system can continue
to function without having to face the unknown state of exponential projections (both social and economic).
War has got harder to do in an ever increasing global world... it's had to justify attacking a country when your nephew's wife comes from that
So war has largely become economic, ie. trade wars... but even with the controlled market approach to balancing the global spreadsheet (been happening
for a century), all the curves continue to grow to an unmanageable point.
Its a whole other topic, but this relates to the amount of "resource" in the world, vs. the amount of cash in the world... hint; with inflation,
there will always be more cash than resource. In a sense, it's that, that is the core to the capitalist system... it's all about predicting how much
money there will be and making money off that prediction... a pandemic shows the fatal flaw in this system because it halts the link between actual
resource and future projections... causing everything to seemingly "stop working", even though technically everything is still in place.
It is only the perceived value of resource that has been effected, not the resource itself... that "perception of value" just has a carry on effect,
all the way down to people buying food.
Which put us where we are.
Funnily enough, we think we are living in a capitalist society, yet the world is beholden to global and central banks, which are private
organizations. We are living in a "hidden in plain daylight" socialist society anyway.
The only problem is the perception, or rather the interpretation of two seemingly conflicting systems. Socialism and capitalism...
The trick at the moment is, due to the exponential growth of capitalism, as a theoretical system (a controlled system that at it's pinnacle looks
like socialism) is that both systems, when interpreted through their seeming contradictions, actually almost exactly mimic each other when applied to
the globe at this precise point in time.
So what does that mean?
Due to current social and economic pressures, capitalism is socialism.
The transition to a better system (more a socialist/capitalist hybrid) can be achieved right now if we visualise capitalism as a landscape of
pyramids, where the peaks represent nodes or the "tops" of money and power (governments, banks, organizations, wealthy individuals, etc.), and the
pyramids beneath represents society (businesses, people, trade, media, etc). In this mental model, currently any "transaction" (transaction being
any task or activity between entites) has to travel down the side of one pyramid and up the side of another to happen, with the risk at every level of
travel up and down the pyramid allows for potential interference of the direct transaction.
A transition from the pyramid structural model of society (capitalism), can be enacted using a networked approach, or a "flat" model (socialism) if
visualised in relation to our pyramid analogy. By flattening the pyramid structural landscape, to a "flatland" style of model, where the peaks of
the pyramids of the capitalist system represent the nodes in a flat networked system.
Our current technology levels could allow for the organizational challenges to achieve this.
This is where our "leaders" see the place for a cashless society, removing physical cash... I argue that we need both... we need the fluidity of a
cashless society, mixed with the redundancy afforded by physical cash. We can also use technology to bring back direct trade in this system (not
having to travel up and down the pyramids) , so the "cash" or middle man can be cut out in many places.
Now, can we realise this as a globe and allow the transition to happen without it slipping into an authoritarian nightmare?
Just my 2 cents.