Note

Understand that this essay was written for no other audience other than myself. It may assume anything without explaination, or randomly begin describing a seemingly seperate topic. I have not gotten to editing it. Thus, think of it more as a draft containing various ideas and thoughts, with some or maybe most being uninteresting, unoriginal, poor, or without detail. It is most certainly not a coehesive body of work, so do not treat it as such. There may be mischarecterizations of concepts or views. Additionally, I would like to state that I do not think this will happen in my lifetime. It would be my dream to see it come to fruition, but it is just an idea. I hope they figure out immortality and make it cheap.

Introduction

The existence of a society is a continuous creation, disruption, and recreation of ideology.

We the sheep, the common men, are fed lies through our dreams of salvation, and when the illusion breaks, we condemn it, revolt, and recreate a new ideology, which once again, holds our faith that things will be better. Mankind has toiled for centuries, millennia, for a better world. For what? War and death and poverty persist, like parasitic worms that feel inextricable to human existence. Human greed and hatred are arguably pronounced more now than ever. Why? What is the root cause of our problems as humanity? It is humanity. We create our own problems. We have no one to blame but ourselves. It is out of such pure and unfiltered ignorance that I am amazed by the fact of our mere existence, speaking no further on our progression.

The time has come for the common man to be a concept of the past, for the people to become truly autonomous and freethinking.

Basic Ideals

We should be creating society the same way we teach a child. Society is always focused on solving current problems, so we forget to look at ourselves. In order to prevent future problems and make it such that they have a lesser effect, we as individuals need to be better and more thoughtful human beings. Societal problems are almost always internally created, out of strife and miscommunication. Out of fear and negligence and emotion. If these things were reduced, on an individual level, the whole of society would have far less problems, far more freedom, and be much happier. How we should do this, and how it relates to rearing children, is this. We look at problems only as how they are presented to us. We do not look at them as structuralist and post structuralist issues. We see racism and fight against it. This is wrong. Fighting against racism might solve that issue, but what about sexism, homophobia? There are an infinite amount of individual problems that will never be solved because they are disjointed and unconnected. The root issue will continue to remain. However, if we give the people tools that allow them to think and assess arguments and thought, not only does the society self regulate, but does so in a way far more efficient.

To create an education of philosophy and critical thinking is to destroy the concept of the common man itself. To give rise to a new society where every person is a philosopher, a free thinker. The issue with all revolutions, all societies of the past is that they always considered man to be sheep. To be stupid and in need of help, whilst simultaneously being chaotic and in need of order. The reality is that men are not sheep. Ideology, dictatorship, even liberal democracy fail, because in the current state of the human condition, man can only be these two things. He can only be an agent who is manipulated because he is liable to hurt himself, and the manipulator who is liable to hurt himself as well as others. Ideology is a religion. A religion will never beat reality, because eventually the peasants will indeed notice God, for all his glory and benevolence, has let disease and death destroy their lives. And then they will revolt.

The sheep rely on the false collective because they have never understood how to stand for themselves, think for themselves, so we become exploited by the ruling ideology’s representation. And we cannot know, because to be under ideology is to be completely unaware of it. We must extricate ourselves from this eternal pit of doom.

Elaborations & Specifics

Synopsis of Ideals

A society needs three things to establish a society of thinkers, of philosophers. A specialized education system, a societal culture of philosophy and an environment of leisure and pure freedom. The education system has, for much too long been nothing but a necessity of the industry, a byproduct of its needs. We the people shall cooperate no longer. The education has to be completely free, up to post secondary degrees. Education must also be mandatory up to a bachelor’s degree, there is no dropping out. Secondly, the government needs to have an extremely strong and consistent advertising program, which essentially promotes the reading, writing and discussion of philosophy, mathematics, sciences ect. This, alongside other changes, will start to affect how people spend their time, and what they are interested in. It helps that because everyone has a degree, they will have at least one practical reason to engage and think. The idea of changing the culture of thought is paramount to changing society at large. Subconsciously and socially affecting the decisions of the people to do better will truly create a culture centered around philosophy. Lastly, philosophy needs an environment. Library funding, public speaking, subsidized housing, free food across the nation, ect. The system will, in general, have to be made from a marxist structure. This is because the pursuit of capital is a death sentence to this dream, since it makes education it’s slave, makes the people unhappy and mindless workers, and simply doesn’t allow for the institutions that would create the opportunity for this to work. It has one more insurmountable issue with it, which I will get back to. The government should be a more direct version of democracy, and have a more transparent and accountable system that can be changed, critiqued and tweaked.

Overall Societal Landscape

In general, such a society may have a communist (notastate) state where money doesn’t exist, but instead of being worked on by workers, all its menial labor is to be done by machines and AI. This leaves the time and space for the people to focus on more important tasks. Additionally, instead of having a name, or borders, or a party system, or national identity, or a single leader in power, or a free market, we have no name (people can refer to it as “noname” in any language), have mediators and such who create political community questions and execute decisions, an arbitrary line of where noname land starts(you can enter without passport or visa, the only requirement is that you will accept any missing education (if you don’t have a degree)), you can use public land as long as it is allowed by the public or not needed, a planned economy, etc.

A free economy has two incentives. Capital, and ideas. We want to share and create ideas because we think it is helpful or useful. We also create because we want money. The essential use of money is for self survival, which is taken care of by this system because there is no need to work for survival. Thus, there is no need for money, because Materialism and consumerism have no hold on the consciousness of the philosophical man. We dislike collectivism because we want autonomy. So we will use collectivism to create autonomy. The idea of living in such a society is to create true freedom, not by destroying peoples lives or just lying to them. We are free, and everyone benefits.

One thing to be understood about this system is that it is still currently a framework, a skeleton. This system, whenever it is implemented, will immediately have changes made, based on exactly what that society wants from it. The important part is the concept, a society where most work is done by AI and robots, and thus we are free to enjoy and think.

A specific point I would make about this system is the necessity to have fully customisable, programmable repairable 3d printers and printed robotics, this way we can change and optimize machinery to create whatever products become needed. Additionally, products and things in general should be designed for robustness, efficiency, have multipurpose, be environmental, and be easily repaired, reused or recycled. Noname should be fully autonomous from countries, and self regulating (by the people.)

Scaling

An essential aspect of this system is scaling. More specifically, the scaling of industrial processes and education. As a non-state, noname would have no enforcement in borders, and would remain completely neutral in all conflicts, not only because it is impartial, but also through the fact that the “it” does not exist, since it is not an entity and thus cannot be treated as such. Referring to noname as such is only out of necessity of grammar. Because of free passage of borders, there are only two options we have with what to do with refugees and asylum seekers. The first option, which I have spoken about but will elaborate on is only offering public services to registered, fully legal immigrants. Everyone else would be allowed to come and go, but would have no access to services, and as there is no fiat or monetary value in noname, they would have no accommodations. Thus, people are encouraged to only arrive if they are to be registered, otherwise they are essentially living in the wilderness. The second option, which is much more ambitious but farther fetched, is scalability. As explained in the betterment of the human condition by John Jones, there is a potentiality for self replicating, self repairing and self reconstructing nano machines that can be programmed to change their structure, function ect. This nanotechnology would be the key to a futuristic society. It will never be thrown away or useless. Noname can simply construct their industry out of these nano machines, and as it is a planned economy, can increase and decrease production of anything according to real time changes in population, demand, ect. A similar thing can happen with education, where we conceive of an education of the future. We essentially use holographic imaging to create interactive virtual reality environments that can fit thousands onto a single server. An entire class of people could then be lectured to and addressed by a single instructor, who simply explains and then answers a few questions, and assigns some work. The rest of the questioning and grading is done by interactive ai chat bots that act as a personal instructor. Better still, an instructor will not even be needed, as every student could have their own personal ai instructor. The last component to this would be the human interaction and questioning to come from peers rather than an instructor. Doing so will not only better prepare us for the real world of independent problem solving, but also in teamwork and collaboration. Thus, the age of the teacher will leave us, paving the way for a truly personalized, mass education. This not only solves the problem of scaling if we really are to make mandatory post secondary degrees even for immigrants, but it also makes society at large more self sufficient, robust and problem solving thinkers.

The debate of the Constitution

There is a problem, among many others with this system. In fact, I would reckon that it is no stretch to claim that when designing a politi-socioeconomic system this problem is inevitable. Whether to have a constitution or not. I claim this to be important even more so in a system such as mine, where a sort of equilibrium is trying to be made, a perfectly self sufficient system that will not fall into the ideology cycle. The problem with having rule sets that are extremely difficult to amend, like a constitution, is that it creates an inflexibility in a society. Take America, where the constitution is the most powerful law there is. Back in the day, the right to have guns made sense, as people wanted to protect their country from an internal threat of dictatorship or monarchy. However, today there cannot be such a threat, and moreso, if there was, civil war would be impossible because the modern military is incomparable to any weapons a citizen could acquire. It is unreasonable and unnecessary. Yet the law persists. This is the first issue, and it is consistent across subjects, as in ethics deontological morality suffers from similar criticism. The second issue with a constitution enshrining rights in gold is that it creates dogma. Ideology is deceivingly powerful, because it can spontaneously exist under certain conditions. Once again, in America the constitution is somewhat taken as a divine right, not in the religious sense, but simply in their belief. The constitution is not just a document about rights, it is ideology, an ideology about this Americanist freedom.

Marx disagreed with Hegel about exactly what historical process affected society. Hegel thought it to be the giest, the spirit of collective human consciousness. Marx said it was the exploitation of the ruling class over the proletariat. I do not fully agree with either of them, because I believe they missed one more aspect to these ideas. This new Marxism combines these ideas, and claims exploitation not by the ruling class, but by any representative of a collective, over not the proletariat but over the ignorant man, whether he is rich or poor. And this exploitation is done by the giest, or rather the ideology created through the giest. Indeed, man is still exploited by wealth disparity and political impotence, yet it is this ideology that controls man. The historical process creates movements, the Marxian process creates economic disparity, the new Marxian process creates mental control and subversion through a combination of ideology and it’s derivatives, including economy, social ideals, the political sphere, ect.

The New Hegelian Dialectic

The new hegelian dialectic is a synthesized theory of the geist and historical progress with the ideas of the tyranny of nature, the progression of the human race into a higher form of being, and evolved forms of the Marxian dialectic. The original hegelian dialectic does not define any progression through a historical revolution, movement, philosophical thought ect as better or worse, and only establishes that there is, in fact, movement. This new dialectic affirms that there are indeed greater concepts and changes in history compared to most, and thus stick out as indicators of humanities progress, their future from there and their methods of progression to that point of philosophical thought. These indicators are as follows

1. The state of nature; tyranny of nature over mankind
2. The self tyranny of man on man, creation of civilization (agricultural revolt)
3. A semi state of transition between 2 and 3, with partial human awareness
4. The next step,the transformation of society into a self sustained existence
5. The combination of AI and human consciousness, the synthesis
6. The final form of humanity, we become pure consciousness, synced as one collective being while retaining our individual egos, thus the entire species becomes the abstract notion of the true collective. Godhood.

New Hegelian Dialectic Synopsis

To understand these stages and their concepts as well as the greater concept surrounding them, we must first explain the reasoning behind it. The tyranny of nature is explained in previous documents, but I will recite it here. In essence, it is the idea that all species are subject to the will of nature, which only works for its self preservation, and it does so through its control over the evolution of animals and the ecosystem. It does not care about individuals, or species. It only cares about the greater balance of the entire ecosystem. The first step of man in the geist towards understanding was the creation of society. Man broke free of the political chains of nature, he was now under the tyranny of himself. He supplied his own food, he could fight off predators, had shelter and discovered fire. This allowed him greater independence from his oppressor (but not complete freedom(yet)). Though this brought its own challenges, the first step proved that progress could be made, and that man could aspire to a higher ideal. Moving forward thousands of years to the present, Man had started to stagnate, the quality of life had not changed, and his oppressors were arguably worse than nature. Then, the semi stage, or perhaps a new step was created. First by the scientific revolution, and then by the industrial revolution. For the first time in history, man became free from his oppressors! Or so he thought. Dictatorships, communism, fascism, and now democracy, man had tried and tried, yet all of these systems still oppressed him, each more subtle and subversive than the last. It is here where Zezik’s ideas about ideology and unfreedom are important, as well as Foucault’s ideas about the power-knowledge relationship. They prove that the dogma and oppression suffered through the second stage was still prevalent today, ever quieter in its presence, yet even more powerful in its effects. The last piece of the puzzle comes from a theory of my own, which took down the last oppressive ideology before the 4th stage, representative democracy. This was the definition of the false collective, and thus was intrinsically exploitative. In addition to the problem of needing to progress past the oppression of the current system, we also had started to reach the second form of oppression from a ruler long forgotten, nature. We are constrained by our bodies, by our physical minds. The vessel for our potentially infinite consciousness is going to fail us. Under these two great problems, we move into the fourth theoretical stage of humanity. Also to be understood as the last stage of the separation of the human consciousness and AI, this will be as far as our current physical vessels will take us. This will be the best society possible under our current cognitive abilities. Human exploitation will cease to exist, the true collective will come into being, power-knowledge dichotomies will diminish and every single human will become a brilliant aware individual. The second to last step would be the semi-stage or next step of the previous one, where we eventually combine ourselves with AI, and become truly free from our original oppressors. Now the only oppression remaining to solve would be the oppression of our physicality and the minute oppression that may still exist. This leads us into the final, higher form of the consciousness. We become a singular true collective entity whose constituents remain individual and autonomous. We may become something like pure energy or consciousness, the complete abstraction of what existence is. We become gods. My timescale for this if we started moving towards the fourth step now would be around 10-20 thousand years, which is incredibly short. Step four is the marxism described in this manifesto, but it is important to not make the same mistake all other marxian ideas made, which is that they were ideologies, and that they considered themselves to be ends, without understanding that they were simply another means, just like socialism.

Transitions Between Stages

Now that we have described the synopsis, let us get nitty gritty into the transitions and understandings behind each step in the geist. The transition between the tyranny of nature into the tyranny of man was an action motivated by the conscious sense of self preservation. I say conscious here because our self preservation is not from predators like other animals, which is instinctive, but a preservation against nature itself, which requires understanding of the system, which is a conscious task. This movement into society was made possible by various technologies, notable ones being fire, agriculture and basic housing. This allowed society, in this sense meaning a group of people living under conditions created and maintained by humans. Because of this, greater numbers could be held in a single group at once, and political hierarchy saw its beginnings. Here one must differentiate from political hierarchy to social hierarchy. Social hierarchy is hierarchy without consciously explained structures, and does not serve the express purposes of organization and control. They are a simpler version of hierarchy from which political hierarchy was based off of. Political hierarchy, on the other hand, has consciously created structures acknowledged for the purposes of control and organization. Going back to the original point, because of the creation of basic society, some basic organization was needed as well. This simple society evolved overtime to create the great civilizations of the past. During these times, political hierarchy became much defined as its own subject, away from but not unconnected to sociology. Because of the larger and more complex societies being conceived, better and more advanced political structures were required as well, and man experimented with such structures for a long time. Fast forward to the scientific revolution, which started to tug at the veil of ideology put over the common people by the church in Europe, great philosophical progress began to be made (compared to the reletively unimpactful middle ages aside from names like Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo), and the greater society became less religious. But people still needed to have faith in something, in some sense of salvation. Thus modern political ideology in its true form was born. The four greatest examples of this were fascism, communism/socialism, american capitalism and representative democracy. The way in which it can be described is again, by Hegel’s dialectic. There is a thesis to which the people give their faith in the hopes of improvement upon their lives. Increasingly, the people gain confidence in the system and it grows and grows until the system reaches a sort of climax in its power or the confidence the people have in it. The antithesis is introduced, after the illusion of the ideology breaks, and the people realize that their suffering was not going to be repaid. Then the thesis falls, and in its place stands the synthesis, a new, better idea. (Of course, this is a loose usage of the Hegelian dialectic, the new society may choose to use a new system entirely.) However, over the years the ideologies and their representatives who take advantage of the ignorant have become sly, and their control over society less visible. To give them credit, they did indeed create better societies, but the problem was still intrinsic, so it has to change eventually. The clear lack of freedom under the communist and fascist regimes have been replaced by the quiet unfreedom of representative democracy and American capitalism, both of whom employ the tactic of the visage of freedom in choice, as Slavoj Zizek points out. Thus, this new marxian society’s step in the geist is to finally rid us of this tyranny. In fact, I have not stated it up to now, but the ultimate motivator for this entire being of humanity’s progress is in fact the pursuit of true freedom and autonomy. The end goal of the geist is this, this self realization and unobstructed consciousness which has complete freedom over itself. An additional factor to understand why this transition is important, between the third stage to the fourth is because of the fundamental incompatibility between a system based off of intellectual gratification and capitalism. In capitalism, the driving force for productivity is simultaneously a stimulant and an addictive drug. It’s problem is that it is a double edged sword, where the pursuit of money diminishes the pursuit of truth, awareness and thought. A society that is constantly thinking about making money never stops to think about greater philosophical issues, becomes sheeps, and gets exploited. Unfortunately, capitalism needs this ignorance to survive as a system, otherwise it would diminish in productivity. Thus, capitalism is inherently incompatible with the progress of humanity. This is why the fourth step is truly a great milestone, a turning point and a mediator between the brutality and oppression of the old humanity and the new aware humanity which, free from its chains of internal oppression (societal, self induced) can now once again focus on external oppression (nature, physical limits). This leads me into the purpose of the transition from the fourth step into the fish step, from flesh and bone animal into steel calculating machine. By this point, another understanding must be mentioned. The types of oppression that exist within humanity can be divided into two groups, physical and non-physical, or mental. By physical oppression I am not (always) referring to oppression of an employer or such onto a worker, I am referring to the actual limitations of the physical aspect of our being, namely our bodies. (The physical oppression of workers is a derivative of mental oppression, the physical oppression of the nature of our vessels is not.) By mental oppression I am not talking about the physical constraints of the human brain, but of the oppression through power-knowledge structures, political economies, historical structures in general, ideology and dogma, religion, political oppression, misinformation, societal ignorance ect. The greater oppression is currently mental, because it locks away the chance for further progress right now, thus it is also the more pertinent oppression. An example of physical oppression being more important would be in the fourth and fifth steps, whereas the mental oppressions are typically being addressed in the second and third steps. Essentially, mental oppression could be thought of as bad software (societal & individual mental/organizational structures), and physical oppression as bad hardware (biological physical body and brain). Although mental oppression will remain to some degree until the sixth stage is achieved, the main problems will be dealt with, making our mental oppression more about going beyond what is currently conceivable as human consciousness rather than solving problems with it. By that I mean simply that the mental oppression of the past will essentially be gone, and so from there it is not a matter of solving past oppressions, it is about creating higher consciousness. Thus, from the point of the fourth stage of the dialectic, mental oppression will not be an issue, so we will leave the “going beyond” for later. (Note that this dialectic can also be understood as a dialectic about the various oppressions of man, as every stage in the dialectic can be understood as fighting against a particular type of it.) For now, our current oppression to deal with is the oppression of our own bodies. The fourth step is, as previously stated, is the last step in which man and augmentation of consciousness remain separate. At this stage, it is the constraint of having a physical body that prevents us from all kinds of otherwise achievable feats that make us more perfected, aware and intelligent beings. True immortality, higher computational power, connection to all existing human knowledge, infinite photographic memory, physical augmentation, flight, long term space travel, all of these things would be completely achievable without the constraint of human bodies. As we have already ascertained, the body is nothing but a vessel to contain and support the consciousness, to let it perceive and impart its will on the world. Thus, to have a better vessel means to have a better position for our consciousness to understand and exist. This is the major oppression to be overcome at this stage of the dialectic. It is also important to remember that this augmentation of the human mind also reduces mental oppression, because we are more aware and thoughtful through our complete and instant understandings of all that has been analyzed and written, so mental oppression has not just decreased, but started its ascension into a higher consciousness. Going into the fifth stage, the final oppression shows itself as once again physical, but also mental. This time, the mental oppression is again, not an oppression, but a higher form of consciousness that we are trying to achieve. That is the complete sync of all homo-ai consciousnesses into a singular entity, whilst every individual consciousness still remains individual, with a concept of the ego, or the “I” with separate but shared thoughts and emotions. The physical oppression of merely having a physical body will be solved by becoming, in the literal sense, incorporeal bodies of pure energy or consciousness that have reached a state of enlightenment or nirvana. Humanity will become the abstract idea of the Giest itself, and thus the historical process will truly end. The rest of humanities days will be spent understanding the inner workings of reality, answering all questions about the universe that could be asked, and becoming gods. Thus, humanity will become that which is inconceivable, ultimate beings. This is the goal of the new dialectic, the true dialectic.

A Postructuralist Structure

A critique of this manifesto could be that it is defending a structuralist idea which has already been shown to be an incomplete understanding of society without its counterpart, post structuralism. However, if one looks closely at this system, one can see that in fact it is a structure built not upon or as an improvement for previous structures, but a completely new structure built from post-structuralist critiques of structuralism. In addition, most structuralist systems are inflexible and rigid. This system has, on purpose, left some more specific aspects of this new dialectical society as indeterminates because it is a core tenet of this system to try and give as much freedom as possible to every person and the society at large. It gives the system the flexibility to be changed and or improved. It is not my place to give them (readers) such specifics, partly because there are so many ways in which the intricacies of the system could be structured that by my giving an opinion to one system, and people may forget that this is only a basis, and that it is ultimately up to a society and their political beliefs to create such specifics. This is a creation of a concept, not a blueprint. The second reason to why I will not give such specifics, only potentialities is because there is a high chance that those systems may become ineffective in light of new political, economic, philosophical ect understandings, as well as the growth of the AI and machine learning sector upon which this theory places much of its hopes and dreams. Nonetheless, I will still explain exactly what I have not discussed and then give some suggestions.

Why Previous Structuralist systems fail

The issue with a structuralist system is that it is trying to make up for a deficiency in the actors of the system, which is not possible because the decisions being made in the system will always have to be made by these actors, thus their irrational actions which always bleed through the safeguards put in place, no matter how clever or ingenious they may be. This again goes back to the ideas of mental oppression, where because no man can be trusted, every single position in society will either be a position of oppression or of the oppressed. I treat them (oppressors & oppressed) equally in some sense here because their effect on society is overall, the same. The oppressors misinform, control, manipulate and lie. Meanwhile, the oppressed perpetuate this cycle by allowing the oppressors to operate, and create violence and revolts that end in suffering and a re crowning of a new system of oppression. They, in the same way Foucault speaks of knowledge and power, internally perpetuate, and cycle between the stages of ideological governance. This mental limitation stops the growth of humanity into the fourth stage, and disrupts the geist. (The people put faith in a system, it rises until a climax of power, and eventually crashes, typically through a revolt or an eco/politico/socio problem sparked by the system’s own inadequacies. Then it crashes, and the cycle starts again.) Although they may not be aware of it, the masses are just as responsible if not more so for the situation society is in at any time. This is why breaking the cycle is so important. However, there is another threat from this cycle too, the very threat of the climax continuing indefinitely, and a sort of society like that in 1984 coming to fruition. However, in accordance with modern ideology, it will be far less noticeable until it is much too late. This society is modern capitalism.

Issues with Capitalist System; Linking with ideology and oppression

Capitalism has developed ever since it’s conception as a socio-economic system, and is starting to see its potential to have an inescapable grip over modern society. Modern capitalism is the perfection of the abstract concept of ideology in its most subversive, lethal sense. It corrupts so absolutely, and it does so through many different tools and systems. The most important among them being hyper-reality & false consciousness, consumerism, advertisements and the concept of money itself. These are all part of its ideology, although it is easiest seen in its advertisements. This section will break down the philosophical implications of the capitalist system, why it cannot be used further as a viable economic system, and will prevent the growth of humanity into the fourth stage of the new dialectic. The use of hegel’s dialectic in this theory is that through the postmodernist ideas of hyper-reality and Zeziks ideas about ideology gives rise to a false consciousness. This goes hand in hand with the ideological dogma of the capitalist system and trivializes the very fabric of our existences. This capitalist ideology is so blatant in its methods, yet so subversive and unseen that even the aware individual cannot help but be ensnared. This situation is made worse by the fact that we are stuck, not only physically within the capitalist system, but also mentally because we are taught that a system outside of a capitalist one is bound to fail. To fight this norm is to be branded a radical and a leftist at that. This is obviously the complete opposite of what the dialectic is trying to achieve, and thus is not compatible.

The second reason this capitalism cannot be used as a part of the dialectic is because of the needs of the dialectic. Which are specific and require a large portion of the labor of the state, which cannot be used in a capitalistic system because the workers work for corporations, and if they didn’t the government would lose money every year because they are taxing less money than they paid their workers. A marxian-style system makes it possible to use labor and resources to the benefit of the necessary institutions, like education, healthcare and subsidized housing.

The third problem would be the use of money as a motive for workers to produce work. By using money, people become obsessed with the money itself, without regard to the fact that its value diminishes beyond a certain point. This becomes a double edged sword which takes away from the awareness trying to be instituted into the nonstate and feeds consumerism.

Thus, capitalism not only goes against the core philosophical idea behind this dialectic, but is also economically unviable and has problems with its main motivator of work within society. This is also without mentioning that plethora of normative marxist critiques of the system, as well as other ecological, (geo)political and social problems that exist within it, of which to describe and critique would be a separate topic.

Indeterminates

Moving on, we should talk about an elephant in the room, something I said I would touch upon later. The indeterminates within this new society, this nonstate. The first indeterminate to address is administration. Administration is one of the most important aspects of this system, because we need to make sure that no one is in a position of relative power. Of course, certain people have certain jobs within the society, but politically everyone has to be truly equal. However, we understand that even with AI and advanced technology, it will not be possible to do a direct democracy decision with every single group decision that is necessary to take, at least until the fifth stage where we may have the connection through augmented consciousnesses to be able to answer all political questions, throughout the day 24/7. This would be ideal, because every decision in the entire society could be simultaneously evaluated and given an opinion on. Here is where the controversy starts, and where my decision to not give a specific way of action starts to make sense. If every single action is evaluated by AI and every member of the nonstate, is there any sense of autonomy? Here, there are so many variables as to how this administration could run. Another way of going about this is doing administration this way, but say that in the end these evaluations are really just suggestions, and the person asking about the decision is the ultimate decider. Or we could say this usage of AI linking is a fifth stage technology, and thus in that system you would do your best as an individual and consult your group members and an AI, then make a decision. As long as it is a logical, justifiable decision, then it will be accepted. Or we could say that one can have autonomy and that direct democracy would only be used in political votings, not in day to day work and tasks. Ultimately, the answer to the exact functioning of the administration depends on the growth of AI, how close we are to the fifth stage, the greater society’s political and philosophical ideals, ect. Because of this, I have left this part open ended. Even having “core aspects” of a system, such as valuing autonomy, may become irrelevant in the future because of new philosophical understandings of individuality, consciousness, ect. For now, I believe that maintaining autonomy and freedom is important, and that we should reap the benefits of higher freedom because we worked to create a system where everyone is responsible. It seems to me to defeat the point of creating a system where the people are able to make, aware, knowledgeable and thoughtful decisions on their own if we just still use democracy everywhere. In general, I believe that although important decisions will be made with a directly democratic system, and the workplace will have similar systems too, ultimately decisions in society will rely more on the individual than before, because we can and we want that. AI consultations will most probably be quite common though, so to some extent every decision may be influenced by that, creating a further safeguard.

Judicial, Legislative & Executive Governmental Powers Functioning and Structure

The next indeterminate has to do with administration, and that would be the creation, processing and enactment of bills, policies, and voting. How would questions for the voters be made? The processing of these laws? Ect ect. Essentially, what do the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of this society look like? Would there even be such a system? Here there is again the same problem, and that is whether AI would be able to do these tasks? If they can, are we sure they are not biased? The biggest problem however, is that these positions are positions of power. By giving these positions to people, we create more oppression, hierarchy and polarization. However, this may be a necessary evil for the time being, and will carry on into the fifth stage. Only in the sixth and final stage do we seem to rid ourselves of such things. However, if we are optimistic, we could go off the notion that because all of society are educated, brilliant individuals, even “average people”, the amount of crime, or actions to be prosecuted in court may be to such a low amount that every case could have the input of the entire population. Not only that, but because the class antagonisms, racism, sexism ect, as well as the wealth disparities of capitalist systems are nonexistent, (the biggest motives for crime), thus crime itself will lose all purpose, making it a useless endeavor. Perhaps then the entire judicial system could be done away with, and instead any criminal can be rehabilitated simply by seeing a group of psychologists, neurologists, and therapists that can then at their own discretion rehabilitate these criminals. Such a system would not need a judicial system, and all damages and such will be dealt with by engineers and robots. Minding Foucault, I think that the concept of the judicial system itself (and the prison system for that matter) must be disposed of in place of a new system that again puts a large amount of trust into the individual, and the individuals of society.

In this way, we can circumvent that inevitable oppression of the structuralist system in place of a more flexible, post-structurally informed informal structure that relies on trust. This is of course not to say that oppression will not exist, that “bad” things will not happen. This will exist all the way up to the final stage, but they will be greatly diminished at the fourth stage, to the point where really, they have no effect on society because everyone already understands the genesis and types of oppressions and thus can counter their effects. So, I have established that the best judicial system is to have no formal system, rather a reference of the criminal to experts on crime, psychology ect (and medical/self help AI) who can converse with the perpetrator and decide together when they are rehabilitated.

What about the executive and the legislative systems? Starting with the more difficult of the two, the legislative, we could try to create such a system that bases its potential legislation off of objective, quantifiable metrics. For example, if the road in some street has potholes, a question for people in the local area would be whether to fix it. (This is just an example, most likely things like these would simply be taken care of regardless by the AI evaluation systems and fixed by robots.) Questions like these would make political decisions more accountable, easier to analyze and improve, and simpler to create and answer. In addition, instead of basing political decisions on personal analysis and preference, AI could create estimates for usage of labor, time, value of the subject, ect to quantify the decision to mathematically evaluate the better decisions. Of course, ethical questions in politics would still be handled by humans, like if building a pipeline would kill x animals, but the rest of decisions could probably have the better outcome determined by AI, and then checked and confirmed by humans. The creation of these questions could probably be handled by AI, who would take inputs from humans, (ex: I am worried about x issue and want people to make a decision), and then pose a question to people on their devices. (Current AI can already do this, so it is already a technology we have). Using this method, even the phrasing of the questions cannot have bias, and will be phrased the same way, in the same style consistently. This ensures that as much oppressive and biased legislation is eliminated as possible. (By oppressive and biased legislation I mean legislation that is non quantifiable, written with bias, basis creative by representatives, ect). Thus, the people will have the power to pass any bills and legislation they want, and will been held accountable in their decisions. All while the entire system is clean, simple, unbiased and quantifiable.

The last body of the traditional government, the executive system will simply be a combination of human computer scientists and AI re-programing robots and industry to carry out whatever tasks were passed by the legislative body. Again, a simple, clean system that does not put people in political power, so it remains unoppressive.

Law Enforcement & Military

So the systems of government have also been covered, what about law enforcement and the military? How will this nonstate keep itself sovereign and autonomous? Since the state is completely neutral and does not engage in any outside politics beyond keeping peace between every other country, it is to some degree assumed that these two things are not necessary. Additionally, internal enforcement is again, not considered unnecessary because people are expected to be responsible citizens. However, in case there are internal issues, the same robots used for industry can be reprogrammed and remade into police, thus enforcement should not be a problem.

An issue pertaining to enforcement and such may be the ownership of weapons, drugs and alcohol. Again, this is indeterminate because it depends on the people, and whether as a society people agree these things should be allowed or not. However, again I believe people in this system are going to be responsible, and I want the people to have as much freedom as possible, thus it is in my opinion for these items to be fully legalized.

Similar topics on ethical problems are again indeterminates. Whether or not to accept refugees, whether or not religion should be allowed. For me, allowing these two things creates more freedom, yet it may undermine the society by allowing less educated people to join the system, creating religious dogma. Thus, in my opinion I would not allow religion, but would allow some refugees, as long as they participate in the rigorous education system. However, there are problems with both sides, so that is why these types of decisions are indeterminates.

Why bother with indeterminates

Something I would like to note is why I am bothering with such indeterminates, and that is because of my own experience reading political books, especially the communist manifesto, and that is that there were often topics or aspect of their societies and ideas that had simply not been addressed, which created later problems in understanding the text and having a basis to add upon. Thus, I believe that all aspects of my society should be covered as much as possible, and updated as my ideas progress,

Transitioning

Perhaps the greatest elephant in the room, one that goes back to the original marxist theories themselves, is the transition from the current state of society to this imagined theoretical nonstate. How will this happen? Personally, I believe in a strong but logical and economically conscious movement from the current political sphere into a progressively more non-traditional leftist stance. Overtime, once a socialist state is reached, a faster and more radical push towards the full new dialectical marxism can be done. This movement from this current third stage into the fourth stage may itself call for a dialectical, or rather a guidelines for the transition in the way the dialectical steps are a guide. If it is viable, then the guidelines would look something like so

1. A more leftist progressive stance on general policy, largest emphasis on extreme education reform and push for government advertising encouraging philosophy
2. Going from a strong healthcare system, government funded education and social services, and social safety net to free healthcare, free education to post secondary, and more money in social net and institutions (eg. public areas, hospitals, schools, ect)
3. Going from an essentially scandinavian society to a push for the abolishment of money, close trade and set up fully self-sustaining industry, heavy AI implementation; socialism
4. Moving from Socialism to complete new marxism, taking down names and nationalism, change all institutions, change government to direct democracy, full AI/robotics usage This list is more or less the chain of events necessary. It is definitely true that going from steps 2-3 and 3-4 will be extremely difficult, but I believe that if the education system works, people will start to understand and push to make it a reality. However, effective techniques for pushing for this theory are more or less what we have right now, by creating movements, protests, ect. However, something that might be done differently is to have discourses within the intelligent circles and universities to convince academics, which may prove to the world that indeed, these systems are viable and have great potential. Books and further ideas about this system will blossom, continually pushing this idea, adding more theories to refine it, make it better.

Jobs and Workers

Although the majority of societal functions will be carried out by AI and robots, there still need to be people who regulate and improve the system. Additionally, there is a definite chance that humans will still be needed to do certain jobs that are harder for AI or cannot be completely done through AI. For such job positions, people will most likely be volunteers, and work shifts will likely be as long as one wishes to work. If one does not wish to, they do not have to work at all, but knowing that it is an extremely important service to society, I believe that the people will live up to the expectation of volunteering in this fourth stage society. Thus, there should not be any problems with worker shortage.

Conclusion

This first step is the single largest that may ever be taken in human history, because if it happens, the entirety of possibilities for humanity opens, and we will never look back again. I truly believe that this is the path to a near perfect society, if such a word could ever be true.

The Shortcomings of the Dialectic

Bias and contradiction are innate to existence. The mere fact that one perceives the universe, that they think, that there is a sense of an “I”, an ego or self posit one is in some way separate or different to the universe, which in the fact of being a notion means it will have an opposite, an antithesis. Even in the dialectic, the mere fact that there is a synthesis shows that there was and through the synthesis still is a contradiction. And the logic used to come to this answer, whether the dialectic or some other is in itself already assuming, trying to compartmentalize, objectify, which means there is a bias, a way of thought. The dialectic assumes that eventually we can reach a truth, after all synthesizes are combined, yet there are an infinite number of theses. The fact that there is a perception through senses, and even more, a thought behind that perception means that that idea is already under an unfreedom, an oppression. The mere fact that there is a thesis proves the existence of an antithesis. The only way to live without bias, contradiction and oppression is to not think, to see and think nothing. This is to say that to live in a state of non-existence is the only way to be free. Thus, one cannot expect to ever be “liberated” from these things, because they are more or less innate to existence. However, it does not mean that all oppression cannot be refuted, this is not true. The oppressions we face now are not undefeatable, and some of them are self inflicted. These problems are able to be fixed, and should be. When we reach that point where reality is oppressive in itself, we can rest easy knowing that we made it, that oppression in all other ways have been overcome. A final thought to add here is that ultimately, it is a completely philosophical notion that such oppression exists, and indeed that it is oppression at all. One could just as well interpret it to be something else, or claim that even this can be overcome. All this to say that we must have hope, and use the passion and emotion we have towards an end that benefits us all from the current state. Know that life does not have any true end, just a constant means towards another, better means. And that the end is found not beyond such means, but exists within the everchanging, self-improving means itself.

Copyright 2024 © Pranav Regmi Created May 15, 2023