What I really think

Tommy Potter

My appeal

Nowadays the highest quality of life is guaranteed for the population of democratic countries with a socially oriented market economy in which humanism (grown on the basis of Christian values) prevails as the current ideology.

At the same time, these democracies are experiencing a deep crisis caused by globalization. This is the result of the transfer of capital, production and technology from developed democracies to underdeveloped countries with authoritarian governance.

Capitalists and authoritarian rulers are allies in maintaining the existing world order. In fact, they did not gather in order to come to an agreement. Just, they have common interests in moving resources from industrialized countries to authoritarian countries, exploiting the populations and natural resources of authoritarian countries.

Bleeding the economies of democracies leads to job cuts, low-wage jobs, precarious work, fear of the future, and cuts in social benefits. In Germany, this situation is called "mutually beneficial cooperation", and most political parties do not doubt in its favor. This is the real cause of the crisis in Western democracy.

The crisis can be resolved either by completely destroying democracy as a form of government, or by moving to a fundamentally new form of society. This transition must be provided with the following three conditions.

FIRST: Internet-based digital direct democracy must be implemented, at least in one country. The people should be able to revoke, change and initiate laws, recall deputies and presidents. Direct democracy must complement traditional democratic institutions and representative democracy (with elections for the president, parliamentarians, governors, mayors).

SECOND: The introduction of citizen dividends must be enforced. Citizens should receive unconditional dividends (income or rent) from the country's natural resources and production facilities. At the same time, capitalism, private property and money remain the main engines of the economy. But capitalists have to give up some of the surplus value in addition to the traditional tax.. With citizen dividends the cohesion of the people increases and misery, homelessness and fear of the future are eliminated.

THIRD: Must be established an alliance of all direct democratic states that oppose authoritarianism and that are able to curb international wild capitalism.

It is necessary to develop a new ideology, adequate to modernity and attractive both for the population of developed countries and for the whole world. This may require the abandonment of many libertarian dogmas. The mantras of the political impotent about "human rights" have only led to the fact that autocrats attack, despite the economic and military superiority of democracies.

The political and economic power of the people is actually a "straitjacket" for capital, which makes it possible to solve previously unsolvable problems such as social and geographical inequality, global warming, arms race or "digital slavery".

People's power will make it possible to move from the principle of "money rules the world" to the principle of "politics rules the world", and money is only a means of exterminating horrific autocrats and supporting the socio-economic development of the peoples of the world.

Fukuyama and the ideal society

For thousands of years the prevailing opinion was that there is an “ideal”, well-established structure of human society. It seems that the first extant description of an ideal society was written under the ruler of Babylon, Hammurabi (ruler 1792-1750 BC) in his "Code of Hammurabi" .

With the development of mankind, many different theories of an ideal society have emerged. These theories had two common ideas: 1) the given structure of society will be eternal, 2) the laws of society will be established from above by local gods.

In the twentieth century, two religiously similar ideologies emerged - fascism and communism. The communists believed that an eternal paradise called "communism" would come if all exploiters were destroyed. The fascists believed that if all the "inferior" races were destroyed, a paradise called the "Millennial Empire" would come. (By the way, the Nazis turned out to be more modest. They demanded only a thousand years, not eternity.)

Fukuyama's theory of the "end of history" and democracy that won forever is part of this long line of theories of the "ideal society". That cannot be. Previously, democratic countries developed rapidly, but now we are talking about stagnation and disintegration. This shows us that democracy in its current state cannot last forever. Either there will be a qualitative leap, or decay and destruction.

Let us first consider the causes of the crisis in Western democracy. Reform ideas may arise along the way. I am a supporter of evolutionary change, and I absolutely do not like the idea from the proletarian anthem:

"We will destroy the whole world of violence To the ground and then We will build our own new world, He who was nothing - will become everything!"

New ideology

The systemic crisis of the developed capitalist western society cannot be overcome without a fundamentally new ideology. This ideology should present an attractive picture of the future, desirable for all the peoples of the world, not just those in developed countries, as well as the path to this future.

Foreword

The new ideology must be adapted to the emerging world order, in which countries are divided into two antagonistic camps, the "Authoritarian International" and the "League of Democracies". For the previous half century, the elites of these two camps have lived in perfect harmony, exploiting the planet's population and natural resources.

Initially (approximately in the period 1970-2010), capitalists in the developed democratic countries plundered their countries, pumping resources (investments and production capacities) to underdeveloped countries - for high profits. Accordingly, the pace of development of developed countries was very low. Social spending also hampered rapid development.

Economies of poor countries (such as China, India, Russia) grew rapidly. These countries showed openness, and many of these countries, such as Russia, have simulated democracy.

Since about 2010, major investment flows have changed direction. Now China and Russia are buying up valuable assets in Europe and North America. In the past, Western investors have invested in China (and other poor countries) for high returns.

But investment from China (or from Russia) is a state-controlled process in accordance with long-term plans for economic subjugation and the destruction of democracies. Whereas at the end of the last century China created favorable conditions for Western investment, nowadays Western business is being politely squeezed out.

As a result, the economies of democratic countries are breathing heavily. In Germany, for example, the average German has only doubled his or her wealth since the start of the 21st century, whereas in China it has increased 35-fold! At the same time poor Chinese people have also benefited from some of it. In Germany, on the other hand, all the growth has gone to the rich, while many of the poor have become even poorer.

Traditional Western capital is now being squeezed out of world markets, which has generated a backlash. The economic war with China was started by Trump. The US has probably lost more than it has gained in doing so. In this environment, the idea of a "League of Democracies" revived again. The new President Joe Biden began to promote the idea. In the meantime, "Авторитарный интернационал" - without too much fuss - is booming.

By definition, the League of Democracies is supposed to defend democracy. But so far it has come down to defending the interests of Western big business. (And for big business, democracy is more of a burdenwith social obligations.)

The general population in Western countries is not eager to defend democracy. Social inequality is growing and many are gradually becoming poorer. Big business has almost complete control of politics and the majority no longer trust political parties or leaders. Turnout in elections is falling. People are uncertain about the future and fearful of it. There is no shared picture of the future, no vision of a bright future. This is the crisis of ideology.

The currently accepted ideology

In economics it is neoliberalism, which proclaims the principles of the free market and non-interference of the state in the economy. Neoliberalism hates such things as tackling inequality, social protection and imposing restrictions on business. Under the banner of neoliberalism, international corporations have plundered underdeveloped countries and imposed bloody dictatorships (starting with Pinochet in Chile) since the 197s. In Western countries neo-liberalism has led to ever-increasing social inequalities. Such a "bright future" pleases no one, not even the wealthiest.

Social life is dominated by libertarianism. But libertarianism is more of a dogma or a belief that needs no proof. In short, the recipe is simple: give people as much freedom as possible and everything will be fine. And if not? Then screw it all? Libertarianism does not seek to understand and explain how today's society was formed and how to build a better one. It is not interested in political struggles. It is simply a religion to which very different people, who otherwise have nothing in common, agree.

Humanism, with its belief in human rights, can be seen as part of libertarianism. Humanists are unaware of the existence of economics or class struggle. They know how beautiful everything should be, but they have no idea how to achieve it - it does not interest them very much.

Recently, the most visible trace of humanism and libertarianism in realpolitik has been identity politics. It has led to the formation of various groups based on nationality, religion, sect, race, ethnicity or gender. For example, women, blacks, gays, Muslims, indigenous people, etc. Each of these groups fights for their rights and demands recognition of their exclusivity and special privileges. Women and black people declare themselves victims and also demand, demand, demand... (In psychology, this behaviour of "victims" is called "emotional blackmail").

Identity politics creates a vicious circle of social divisions and is a real danger for liberal democracy. Dictators have already realised this and in their hybrid warfare against democracy are actively fomenting these existing divisions, for example through social media and fake news. But the new ideology should not only unite the people of one country but also conquer the global space.

We create an ideology and any ideology "totalitarianises" thinking and fights against other ideologies and alien ideas. So "we" tell "them": "Human rights and democracy must be defended. We, of course, recognise your super-duper identity and that you have been unfairly offended. But we're fighting for a brighter future for humanity. So get in line to fight for a brighter future or drop away".

Dictatorship of voters (semi-direct e-democracy)

So, autocrats are advancing on all fronts, and in the camp of democrats there is a systemic crisis in all areas - in the economy, in politics, and in ideology. Therefore, a new ideology is needed that can unite the people of the democratic camp. Now dictators are winning, and that fact hint at the idee, that the new ideology should be based on dictatorship!

What kind of dictatorship do we choose? Dictatorship of criminals, as in Russia? Or the dictatorship of the Communist Party, as in China? Or let the dictatorship of banks and international corporations remain? No, only the Swiss version of direct democracy can serve as a model, but adapted to modern times.

The combination of dictatorship and democracy can be perceived as an oxymoron, as contradictory concepts, as nonsense like "dry water" or "hot ice". But the combination of a strong vertical of executive power and renewed democratic institutions should guarantee an advantage over both forms of government - both authoritarian and representative democratic.

What bright future does the newly baked new ideology, the dictatorship of voters, offer us? In the most distant and foggy perspective - some kind of world government, multi-level direct e-democracy supported by artificial intelligence, no weapons of mass destruction and no armies. Hunger, poverty and fear are already forgotten. The citizens of planet Earth are entitled to an unconditional basic income. In addition, they can have both earned and passive income. Private property is protected, although social inequality is minimal. The capitalist mode of production still dominates the non-capitalist mode, but it is under full political control. A large part of the world's budget is spent on ecological projects - such as jungle farming in the former Sahara desert. Interactive virtual reality cinema games about life under dictators are popular.

In a less distant perspective is visible - already more clearly - a world, divided into two antagonistic camps - the "Authoritarian International" and the "League of Democracies". To build a working ideology, we need to show how the League of Democracies will defeat autocrats, dictators, bankers and international savage capitalism.

At present the most suitable candidate for transformation into the League of Democracies is the European Union. To be more effective in the international area, the League must resemble a centralized state and have a unified foreign and domestic policy. What then remains of the sovereignty of individual EU states that are members of the League? After all, it is a dictatorship! Yes, the dictatorship of voters.

There should be 4 levels of democratic governance in the League: 1-Local, 2-Regional, 3-Country and 4-League. At the local level, especially in smaller settlements, all important issues can be dealt with in the old fashioned way - at a general meeting of the residents. At all other levels representative democracy must be supported by direct democracy. As in representative democracy, voters, as usual, elect their representatives - deputies, mayors, presidents... As in direct democracy, voters can repeal laws passed by parliament, initiate new laws, and pass or reject them in referenda (or plebiscites, if the vote is initiated by government bodies). Voters can also remove their previously elected representatives.

It is a complex system. This is normal, because the development of complex systems always means more complexity. However, a complex system can be inefficient and clumsy. And this is not acceptable. For the League to survive, high efficiency and "instant response" are the basic requirements for the League's management system.

Joe Biden said that in private conversations, “Both Putin and Xi Jinping have indicated to me that they don’t think democracies can work in the 21st century because it takes too long to arrive at a consensus; that’s why autocracies are going to win the day.” Of course, democratic institutions have been built over centuries in a worldwith slow changes. These days, technology is advancing rapidly, but the democratic process is slow.

Modern digital technology makes it possible to organise traditional elections and referendums quickly, cheaply and reliably. Artificial intelligence makes it possible to calculate the will of millions or even billions of voters almost instantly - and to propose a solution in a critical situation. These days, politicians are already using the results of various Internet polls and special programs for monitoring social networks to understand what voters want. Technologies such as e-voting or e-government are already in operation in some countries. Authoritarian countries are far ahead of the curve, but with the opposite aims - censorship, suppression, propaganda, cyber warfare.

Straitjacket for Capital

So, we have democratically elected authorities that carry out totalitarian governance and transformation in accordance with a widely accepted ideology and democratically set goals. What does the new ideology require? First of all, it is a "straitjacket for capital".

Limitation of capital`s power occurred in the past as society evolved. First joint-stock companies - such as the "Dutch West India Company" - had their own navy and army, waged wars, and is guilty in genocide of entire nations. The slave trade, too, was based on purely market relations of supply and demand. But the power of capital was limited in the past - genocide and the slave trade are now considered a crime.

In the future, further restrictions on the power of capital are required, especially in the fields of weapons, medicine, genetics, big data, digital technology and artificial intelligence.

Despite the obvious limitations, all countries are now under the dictatorship of international financial capital. The diktat is not carried out by some shadow government, but by the collective interests of bankers and international corporations. Organisations such as the IMF and the Fed have a hand in this too. There is a need to reduce this power and subordinate it to the political interests of the voters and their ideology.

Do capitalists have a conscience?

К. Marx thought not. We have all read his winged quote with the phrase "... capital is willing to commit any crime...".

Milton Friedman’s epochal essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profits,” was published in the New York Times Magazine 50 years ago. The piece remains as polarizing today as it was five decades ago.

The adherence to Friedman's ideas has led to the fact that in the last half century of rapid development of science and technology, the real wealth of a large part of the population of developed countries has diminished! This threatens the stability of the existing order.

Of course, the elite of Western society see the threat and there is no shortage of suggestions. You can read about it in the BBC article: "Why the next stage of capitalism is coming"

One answer to the threat to stability is the idea of "socially responsible business". The idea is that the main goal of corporate management should not be profit, but other goals that are good for society as a whole.

These days, corporations are under strict legislative control and moral pressure from the public - on climate protection, social support, etc. Russia's aggression against Ukraine has changed the world, The pressure on business has also increased - it has become almost impossible to cooperate with the aggressor - "no business can be right in a war that’s wrong".

The idea of "socially responsible business" has received widespread support, but the gap between the poor and the rich continues to widen. Why? The answer is obvious - the rich are looking for new opportunities to maintain their power and privileges, to maintain the stability of the existing system, not at all for social justice.

It is therefore more correct to assume that "capital has no conscience". A fairer distribution of power and the "national pie" is only possible under pressure from the broader population.

Private wealth management in the League.

The foundation of the power of capital is property inequality, which is currently growing. So we must reduce wealth inequality to a size acceptable to society (by means of tax and anti-trust legislation). At present about 10% of the richest people consume more than half of the earth's resources. Much of the economy serves the parasitic consumption of the richest. How can we reduce parasitic consumption and at the same time preserve the productive capital? Increasing social justice must be accompanied by increasing social productivity and accelerating scientific and technological progress.

Increasing the productivity of social labor (rather than "take away and divide") is a must, because otherwise transformation is meaningless. Totalitarian governance (a straitjacket for capital) is important here. Capitalists will simply be prevented from taking away their capital to enemy countries. Attempts by enemy countries to buy up valuable assets and steal technology would be prevented. A common financial and tax space would make tax evasion, making money out of nothing, and running criminal businesses (all of which are now flourishing) virtually impossible

All these restrictive measures do not preclude that more attractive business environment will be achieved. This should be facilitated by unconditional respect for property rights and a fair trial. But reform of the financial and tax systems will be necessary.

Financial system

The global economy is characterized by ever-increasing property inequalities, and rising state debt. This is predetermined by the structure of the usurious financial system.

Money in the economy is created by central and commercial banks lending to the public, to commercial enterprises, and to governments. Private commercial banks lend at interest. In theory, if all the debts were paid back, there would be no money left in the economy, but there would be the debt's interest left unpaid. That should never happen, which is why governments regularly borrow new money. Since most of the money borrowed to pay off the debt is lent out again, the debt grows exponentially.

To pay the growing national debt, the tax burden on the population has to increase. As a result, the debt is still growing, the real welfare of the general population is falling, and the property of the richest is skyrocketing. The population can be considered "interest slaves," because the price of any product or service already includes interest on "money out of nothing.

How much interest do we pay the "money mafia" when we buy any product? 10%, 20%, 30% - or even more? We don't know exactly. It varies from country to country. The only thing that is known exactly is that this percentage only increases from year to year, because of the compound interest effect. So we are all "interest slaves" to the "financial mafia", even if we have never taken out a loan in our lives.

This extremely simplified description of the functioning of the modern financial system explains why the debts of states and taxpayers are constantly growing. On the other hand, the large fortunes secured by these debts are growing. These debts will have to be paid not only by this generation but also by the next one. It is therefore correct to think of this financial system as a fraudulent pyramid scheme designed to rob the poor in favor of the rich.

Read more about this: Feder Gottfried, "Manifesto for the abolition of Interest slavery".

What to do with this fraudulent system?

Critics agree that this system cannot function forever. The tax burden cannot be increased to 100%. Nor can public and private debts be increased indefinitely. If there is nothing to pay back the old debts, there will be no new ones. Resetting the system and cancelling all debts requires a war or the collapse of the economy. For European countries it was World War II, for the former Soviet Union it was the collapse of the USSR, for the United States it was the Great Depression.

There are various theories of a new financial system, without "interest slavery". The general opinion is that the current system cannot be repaired. It must be destroyed completely or collapse on its own. There are proposals to speed up the collapse of the financial system in order to build a new, but fair system on its ruins. I strongly dislike such proposals - reform by catastrophe.

Let's not forget that there is no more efficient system yet. It provides record low cost, record speed and convenience of money transactions. The financial system has come a long way in its evolutionary development. At the dawn of capitalism it was usurious credit that made the industrial revolution possible. And today, without credit, the functioning and development of capitalist production is impossible without credit. So let us try to imagine how the existing usurious financial system can be reformed in such a way that greater social justice is ensured - without losing efficiency.

Issuing money without "interest bondage"

Let the country's central bank be allowed to issue new money and give it to the government without having to "pay back the debt". The amounts issued would be recorded as a liability in a special account, and this amount would increase continuously. (It might be reduced, too, if - for any reason - the money had to be withdrawn from circulation.)

At the same time, commercial banks, as before, continue to provide loans to commercial enterprises and the population. The government can use commercial loans only in exceptional cases.

Central banks have a certain independence from the state and must decide for themselves how much "debt-free money" can and should be issued in this way. It is logical to assume that the volume of emission is determined by GDP growth. However, if it is possible to reduce the indebtedness of enterprises and consumers, then the issue of "debt-free money" can also be increased accordingly.

The same conclusions were drawn at the beginning of the last century by the English engineer Douglas. In 1920 Douglas introduced the A + B theorem in his book "Credit Power and Democracy". He also founded the very popular "social credit" movement in the early 20th century.

Picture from socred.org

Citizens' Dividends

Douglass disagreed with classical economists who recognized only three factors of production: land, labor, and capital. Douglas considered the "cultural heritage" of a society to be the main factor of production. He defined cultural heritage as the knowledge, methods and processes that have gradually accumulated in us from the origins of civilization. Consequently, humanity does not need to constantly "reinvent the wheel." "We are merely the stewards of this cultural heritage, and in this sense cultural heritage is the property of all of us without exception."

Therefore, it is unfair that dividends from our productive potential receive only the owners of industrial and loan capital, whose merit is minimal. Every citizen, as heir to previous generations, should receive some share of dividends. The source of funds for Citizens' Dividends should be tax revenues and in part, "debt-free money".

Citizens' Dividends are discussed separately.

Reducing social inequality

"debt-free money" does not generate bank interest income. This money flows directly into the real economy, bypassing the commercial banks - through the expenditures of the government and the population (that receive citizens' dividends). This reduces the indebtedness of citizens, i.e. the need for credit.

These measures should curb the unrestrained growth of income of the "money mafia" without disrupting the economy and banking system. In addition, the welfare of the population will increase.

Tax Reform

Progressive & constraint tax

A progressive tax, such as on citizens' incomes, is now widely used. Those who earn little pay a lower percentage of income tax than those who earn more. To limit the maximum possible income of an individual, a "limiting tax rate", for example 90%, could be introduced. This would be a "progressive & constraint tax", the PC-Tax.

For example, the monthly income PC-Tax (assume, in EURO): 10% for incomes less than 1,000, maximum 100 35% for income between 1000 and 10000 (100+ max {0.35 x 9000 =3150}) 90% for incomes above 10,000 (3,250 + 0.9 x ...)

The part of personal income used to increase personal capital could be tax-free (or taxed at a reduced rate). Dividing the portion of income used for personal consumption from total income would reduce 'parasitic consumption' and the associated part of the economy.

Annual PC-Tax on personal property: 1% for property up to 100,000, maximum 1000 5% for property between 100,000 and 1,000,000 20% for property above 1,000,000

Tax on the capital of an individual

Capital cannot be taxed at the same rate as personal property, as this would disrupt the efficiency of the capitalist economy. As a general rule, the value of personal property is less than the value of capital and they must be accounted for separately and taxed at different rates.

For example, the annual personal capital tax: 0.1% on capital up to 10 million, maximum 10,000 1% on capital from 10 to 100 million 20% on capital over 100 million

Joint-stock companies require much more capital. At the same time, it must be less than state ownership. Otherwise the political influence of corporations will be too great.

For example, the annual corporate capital tax: 0.1% on capital up to 1 billion, up to a maximum of 1 million. 1% on capital from 1 to 10 billion 20% on capital over 10 billion

So, in order to limit parasitic consumption, improve conditions for competition, and limit the political influence of big capital, the above restrictive rates are presented for consideration. The result should be increased social productivity and social justice.

So, we create some constraints: 90% on monthly income tax above 10,000 20% annual personal property tax above 1,000,000 20% annual tax on personal capital over 100 million 20% annual tax on the capital of companies over 10 billion

The given numerical data should demonstrate the approach to tax reform, and the real proposals, taking into account many factors, should be presented by experts.

Tax on financial transactions (Tobin tax).

It is proposed to tax transactions with securities, currencies, raw materials and derivatives. For example, at a rate of 0.1%. This would render many speculative transactions meaningless and increase tax revenues. < more about the Tobin tax >

The Tobin tax should be taken on all trading floors, otherwise speculators will simply move their business elsewhere.

Of course, it is unrealistic to implement such changes in today's global economy. We need a "League of Democracies".

Decline of democracy.

Much is being written these days about the crisis of Western democracy (and the rise of authoritarian regimes). The main reason is the rising social inequality. While the wealth of rich grows fast, the situation of the poorest improves little - or even is getting worse.

Over time, the middle class is gradually shrinking, and the number of people living on welfare is growing. People see no perspective for themselves and their future and lose trust in the existing democratic structures. Alternative movements - populist, authoritarian, fascist - offer quick solutions to problems. And they will win if the existing elite does not find a fundamentally new remedy to cure Western democracy.

After the collapse of the USSR, it seemed that democracy won forever. This is reflected in Fukuyama's "End of History" concept. Developed country elites believed that investing in underdeveloped countries and growing their economies stimulated the development of democratic institutions in those countries. The result was the opposite: the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes increased, and at the same time, the processes of disintegration in democratic countries increased too.

Symptoms observed: increase in national debt, shortening of social obligations, public dissatisfaction and polarization of society, Brexit, separatism, Trump, nationalism, extremism.

Reasons for the decline of democracy

The reasons are complex and affect the global economy, the structure of the welfare state and democratic institutions, as well as ideology.

The economic reasons are widely known:

• Globalization and the dictatorship of big business

• usurious financial system and debt slavery

• Tax wars and capital exports to authoritarian countries

• tax havens and tax evasion by the rich

• international crime and money laundering

• hybrid wars against democracy

Digitization, the Internet, and artificial intelligence are strengthen these challenges.

Money flows wash democracy away.

After the collapse of the USSR, it seemed that democracy had won forever. This is reflected in Fukuyama's "End of History" concept. Elites of developed countries believed that investment in underdeveloped countries and the growth of the economies of these countries inevitably lead to the development of democratic institutions in these countries. The result was the opposite: the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes increased but in democratic countries began the process of disintegration.

The capital flight from the United States began during the Reagan era, when he carried out internal banking sector reforms that allowed American banks to operate overseas.

In the initial period, the "flight of capital" from rich countries to poor ones made me happy. After all, it improved the miserable life of many people. In conditions of growing prosperity, people are not very worried about corruption, lack of freedom, lack of justice, law and order.

Only over time became it clear, that backward regimes took advantage of investment to increase their power. They used the advantages to strengthen the repressive forces, to expand and modernize armies, to develop fundamentally new types of weapons, for "brainwashing", for "hybrid wars" and local wars.

The report of the famous Swiss bank Credit Suisse (Global wealth report 2020) provides data on the growth of wealth per adult. Data are given for the period 2000 - 2019 in US dollars.

Ownership per Chinese adult increased 35 times to $ 70,000. During the same time, the property of the average German resident has only doubled and reached to $ 240,000. But the rich Germans became fabulously rich, many became poorer, and some were left homeless.

Apparently, the world economy works like a giant centrifugal pump, in which huge resources are rotated. And this pump is slowly but surely pumping vital resources out of decrepit democracies into authoritarian countries. And so year after year, decade after decade - the last half a century.

Western capitalism and authoritarian regimes jointly exploit the people and natural resources of developing countries using the resources of developed democracies. The losers are the populations of industrialized countries and democracy itself, whose livelihoods are being robbed. According to that trend, is the disruption for democratic countries inevitable.

It becomes clear why the elites of Western countries are tolerant and "collaborate" with respect to the crimes of autocrats and dictators, and instead of real measures they limit themselves to "ridiculous sanctions"and express their indignation and discontent.

Autocracy = social inequality.

Rising inequality and the rise of autocracy are two mutually nourishing processes, which reinforce each other. One can even say that these are different names for the same phenomenon.

Strengthening autocracy is not only about concentration of power. Using unlimited power, autocrats seize property as well. By allowing foreign investors to “make money,” they increase the political influence of these investors in democratic countries, as well as the social inequality there.

With high levels of economic inequality, real power is in fact held by the rich. Few people today believe that the political influence of a billionaire and a homeless person is the same, since each has only one vote in elections.

Nobel laureate Angus Deaton writes in his article "Republic of unequals" about American society: "The inequality baked into contemporary US capitalism is warping America’s society and politics".

...Louis Brandeis, a US Supreme Court justice between the wars argued that extreme inequality was incompatible with democracy—wealth inequality undermines democratic equality—and this kind of thought is surely behind much of the present concern. Relational equality might be difficult or impossible in the face of extreme inequality in income and wealth.

... Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote: “Democracy attaches all possible value to each man.” Slowly but ineluctably, unequal respect, unequal esteem, and unequal rewards in American society have come to be felt as a crisis of American democracy.

Occam's razor

According to Wikipedia: Occam's Razor

Occcham's razor, or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity", or more simply, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

In our case it is enough to look at 4 "entities" to explain the decline of democracy.

1. Capitalists, bankers, investors, big corporations ...

2. Authoritarian rulers and their "friends" - the elite, oligarchs, armed forces ...

3. Population in authoritarian countries.

4. Population of developed democratic countries

Capitalists (1) and authoritarian rulers (2) are allies in maintaining the existing world economic order, in the transfer of resources from industrialized countries to authoritarian countries and in the exploitation of the population and natural resources of authoritarian countries.

The struggle of the people of authoritarian countries (3) for their rights is brutally suppressed. This is in favor both autocrats (2) and capitalists (1).

The population of the industrialized countries (4) just does not understand what is happening and is ready to blame the government, parties and migrants for the deteriorating situation ... People see flows of migrants, but flows of money are invisible to the eye.

This situation ultimately leads to the bankruptcy of democracies due to a lack of resources to maintain democratic institutions and social obligations. We observe all of this: the growth of debt, the reduction of social obligations, public dissatisfaction and the polarization of society, Brexit, separatism, Trump, nationalism, extremism ...

What important "variables" have we removed and disregarded with the Occam's razor to explain the decline of democracy?

• First - the political elite, the existing parties and various movements.

• Second - scientific and technological progress.

First:

Existing political elites, parties and deputies in democratic countries usually express the interests of their electorate (if we ignore corruption and lobbying). Most of these interests boil down to sharing the "national cake". When there is not enough money, politician can turn to big companies for help. Then there are joint projects between deputies and business (and the dependency of deputies on the rich). In any case, democracy is a supplicant, not a ruler.

Democrats cannot prohibit "mutually beneficial cooperation" with autocrats (apart from children's games with "sanctions"). But the "mutually beneficial cooperation" leads to slow down the economic in democratic countries and boost the authoritarian economic.

There is no power to destroy the international arms market (although restriction attempts have a long history).

That all means: Real power belongs to bankers, big companies and International corporations (although the population, members of parliament and parties still have a certain share of power).

Second:

The main result of scientific and technological progress is that more and more people are becoming unnecessary in economics. This leads to a decrease in the influence of the trade unions and to a worsening of the situation of large parts of the population in the industrialized countries. At the same time, the rich increase their influence and real power, which can make them even richer. That is, the scientific and technological revolution is playing into the hands of the union of autocrats and capitalists. Why is scientific and technological progress not taken into account when explaining the causes of the democratic crisis?

As a result of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the autocrats were defeated. And then the autocrats came up with a brilliant idea. Why fight capitalism? Better to subordinate capitalism - within the framework of "mutually beneficial cooperation." This is how the union of capitalists and autocrats and the modern global world economic order arose. The scientific and technological revolution is not a prerequisite for this.

Tax Wars

Some countries, such as Iceland or Hungary, set low tax rates for multinational corporations that open their offices in these countries and pay taxes there, despite the fact that they earn in many other countries. Competition arises between countries - who will offer lower taxes. These are "tax wars"

Along with export of capital, legal Tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion, tax wars ruin the economies of developed countries (and at the same time strengthen autocrats, as already written). These phenomena are the main reason for what is called the "crisis of democracy" and "the crisis of capitalism." The emerging social and property inequality threatens the collapse of Western civilization.

It looks like a cure for tax wars has been found. This is a "global tax on technology corporations." 130 countries and jurisdictions join bold new framework for international tax reform.

130 countries and jurisdictions, representing more than 90% of global GDP, joined the Statement establishing a new framework for international tax reform.

The framework includs to-pillar package.

Pillar-1: Large Multinational Enterprises pay taxes where they operate and earn profits. Pillar-2: Establish a minimum level of competition over corporate income tax, through the introduction of a global minimum corporate tax rate (of 15%).

Participants in the negotiation have set an ambitious timeline for conclusion of the negotiations. This includes an October 2021 deadline for finishing the remaining technical work on the two-pillar approach, as well as a plan for effective implementation in 2023.

President Joe Biden:

Today marks an important step in moving the global economy forward to be more equitable for workers and middle class families in the United States and around the world. I want to thank all the signatories of the Paris OECD statement — 130 countries — for coming together to endorse a global minimum tax rate of at least 15 percent. These nations make up more than 90 percent of the world’s economy, which puts us in striking distance of full global agreement to halt the race to the bottom for corporate taxes.

So, capitalism has once again proved its vitality in a changing world. Over the centuries of its existence, it has experienced several technological revolutions and social changes. However, the current crisis of capitalism is so deep that it cannot be overcome only by one international tax reform!

The main villain

Long live capitalism?!

Before we blame the capitalist exploiters, let us remember that they ensure our prosperity. As shown by social experiments of the twentieth century, without capitalism it is impossible to have a high standard of living. For example, in Cambodia and the Soviet Union, this class was completely destroyed, but there was no prosperity. Therefore - long live capitalism!

But not the wild capitalism of Milton Friedman, called Neoliberalism!

Childhood of capitalism

This bright picture of our benefactors also has a dark side, which is described in the book by Yuval Noah Harari "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind".

The most famous Dutch joint-stock company, the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC for short, was chartered in 1602 ... VOC used the money it raised from selling shares to build ships, send them to Asia, and bring back Chinese, Indian and Indonesian goods. It also financed military actions taken by company ships against competitors and pirates. Eventually VOC money financed the conquest of Indonesia...

...The Indian subcontinent too was conquered not by the British state, but by the mercenary army of the British East India Company. This company outperformed even the VOC. From its headquarters in Leadenhall Street, London, it ruled a mighty Indian empire for about a century, maintaining a huge military force of up to 350,000 soldiers, considerably outnumbering the armed forces of the British monarchy. Only in 1858 did the British crown nationalise India along with the company’s private army...

...From the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, about 10 million African slaves were imported to America. About 70 per cent of them worked on the sugar plantations. Labour conditions were abominable. Most slaves lived a short and miserable life, and millions more died during wars waged to capture slaves or during the long voyage from inner Africa to the shores of America. All this so that Europeans could enjoy their sweet tea and candy – and sugar barons could enjoy huge profits.

The slave trade was not controlled by any state or government. It was a purely economic enterprise, organised and financed by the free market according to the laws of supply and demand. Private slave-trading companies sold shares on the Amsterdam, London and Paris stock exchanges. Middle-class Europeans looking for a good investment bought these shares...

...The nineteenth century brought no improvement in the ethics of capitalism. The Industrial Revolution that swept through Europe enriched the bankers and capital owners, but condemned millions of workers to a life of abject poverty. In the European colonies things were even worse.

... after 1945, capitalist greed was somewhat reined in, not least due to the fear of Communism. Yet inequities are still rampant. The economic pie of 2014 is far larger than the pie of 1500, but it is distributed so unevenly that many African peasants and Indonesian labourers return home after a hard day’s work with less food than did their ancestors 500 years ago...

...Today some people warn that twenty-first century corporations are accumulating too much power. Early modern history shows just how far that can go if businesses are allowed to pursue their selfinterest unchecked.

Here I end the excerpts from Yuval Noah Harari's book "Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind".

The Shock Doctrine

From Wikipedia:

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is a 2007 book by the Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein. In the book, Klein argues that neo liberal free market policies (as advocated by the economist Milton Friedman) have risen to prominence in some developed countries because of a deliberate strategy of "shock therapy". This centers on the exploitation of national crises (disasters or upheavals) to establish controversial and questionable policies, while citizens are too distracted (emotionally and physically) to engage and develop an adequate response, and resist effectively. The book suggests that some man-made events, such as the Iraq War, were undertaken with the intention of pushing through such unpopular policies in their wake.

In the middle of the 20th century, capitalism developed rapidly and the well-being of the populations of the industrialized countries grew rapidly. The ideological model of the capitalist economy was Keynesianism. John Maynard Keynes is an English economist. One of the most important tenets of Keynesian economics was: "The market economy cannot regulate itself, and therefore government intervention is inevitable."

Neoliberalism, a new version of wild capitalism, was revived in the 1970s. Milton Friedman from Chicago (USA) was a famous ideologue of neoliberalism, wich views the free market and unrestrained competition as the main means of ensuring progress and achieving social justice. One of the proponents of neoliberalism spoke about the role of the state this way: "I want to make the state so small that it fits in the toilet and I can drain it down the drain."

Naomi Klein's book tells the story of the practical implementation of the ideas of neoliberalism around the world, starting with the Pinochet coup in Chile. Most of the countries of Latin America, the former Soviet Union, Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea) and Iraq fell victim to savage capitalism. Social inequality has increased in all of these countries. A significant part of the population is impoverished. Negative trends such as crime, drug addiction, child prostitution and suicide have increased.

Mutually beneficial cooperation?

The economic interdependence of Russia on the one hand and the European Union and Germany on the other hand is important. In recent years, the flow of goods from Russia to the EU (mainly oil and gas) accounted for about 40% of Russian exports and 7% of EU imports. The flow of goods from the EU to the Russian Federation accounts for around 4% of EU exports and 35% of Russian imports.

Russia mainly sells oil and gas and uses the income mainly for its military-industrial complex. Of course, the most modern products and technologies are bought for this. It seems that without "mutually beneficial cooperation" with the EU, Russia would not have the ability to wage wars (Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, African countries), support dictators around the world and even carry out a global hybrid war.

Germans and other Europeans want to believe that they are only buying oil and gas, but they don't want to know that they are funding wars. If the EU completely stopped economic cooperation with the Russian Federation after the 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the world would be a better place. If Russia had lost 40% of the money received from abroad (and 25% GDP), it would not have enough resources to carry out wars in which tens of thousands of people were killed and millions of refugees were left homeless. Oil and gas could be bought anywhere else (for 7% of import costs).

German investments in Russia are growing strongly again. Despite the corona crisis, the German economy is investing almost 700 million euros in Russia in the third quarter of 2020. The figure for the first three quarters was around 1.3 billion euros. This is reported by the German-Russian Chamber of Commerce Abroad. Two billion is a small amount for Germany, but for Russia it is about 25% of all foreign investment.

What are the "benefits and gains" of this investment for Germans?

1. Germany is losing a certain number of jobs - unemployment and social spending are rising.

2. The rich get richer and social inequality and discontent grow.

3. The Russian economy is strengthening, which enables it to build more "bombs for Syria".

4. The flow of refugees is growing, including to Germany.

With regard to investment and "mutually beneficial cooperation", the capitalists' position is clear: "Money doesn't stink." But the position of the deputies is unexpected. Almost all parties in the Bundestag (except for the Greens) stand up of "mutually beneficial cooperation" with Russia and regret the sanctions. Even left-wing parties, which seem to be supposed to defend the interests of the working people, are so. The situation is approximately the same in other EU countries.

North Stream 2 does not make economic sense for Germany because the existing pipelines are not 100% loaded. The main goal of Russia in building the gas pipeline is the ability to blackmail countries like Ukraine, Poland and Belarus by the possibility of disconnecting them from gas transit.

The start of the construction of this gas pipeline can be considered a great success for the Russian special services. Most likely, a hassle-free cocktail of corruption and compromising evidence was used. The outcome of this special operation turned out to be destructive for the transatlantic and European partnership, regardless of whether the pipeline will be completed or not. Many details of the North Streams are described in the book by the Danish journalist Jens Høvsgaard in the book " The spies who came with the heat ".

Many are wondering why sanctions against Russia "don't work." The economic effect of the sanctions is estimated at 1or 2 percent of GDP. However, since the seizure of Crimea, Russian gas sales to the EU have doubled, which is many times higher than the losses from the sanctions. So, the EU actually rewarded Russia for the occupation of Crimea. See, how Garry Kasparov assesses the behavior of the "West".

In its last resolution, the European Parliament condemns the Russian military march on the border with Ukraine, the explosions in the Czech Republic and the arrest of Navalny. But Putin knows this is just chatter. In the heartache of politicians when choosing between human rights and the rights of the capitalists, the interests of the capitalists usually prevail. A large-scale invasion of Ukraine did not take place and therefore - Europeans (with a clear conscience) can continue to support the Russian military, security officials and propagandists, as well as pay for corruption, violence, brainwashing, arms race and hybrid wars.

Straitjacket for capital

In fact, there is no crime that capital could not commit with the aim of making a profit, as K. Marx wrote about it. However, the development of capitalism went hand in hand with the development of society, which limited the power of capital and made it more civilized. For centuries, private corporations have had their own armies and have been involved in genocide and the slave trade. Today genocide and the slave trade are considered crimes.

The power of capital has been limited in the past and can be further limited in the future, making it impossible to create crises, rob poor countries and start wars. It is necessary to destroy the international arms market and realign the military-industrial complex of all countries for the benefit of the peoples of the world. Modern industry and high labor productivity can provide all of the world's inhabitants with food, shelter and safety.

What changes should be done?

• Setting-up of direct democracy in one country, in the EU and in all truly democratic countries.

• Unconditional income for every citizen.

• Building a "League of Democracies".

Improving legislation, democratic institutions and international cooperation:

• State stimulation for non-capitalist modes of production.

• Financial transparency of income, property and business affairs.

• Nationalization of central banks (in countries where they are wholly or partially private)

• Limitation or elimination of offshore zones

• Getting rid of "tax wars"

• Tighter restrictions on financial markets

• Banning anonymous cryptocurrencies

• Military and security organizations cannot be private

• Arms trade prohibition for private companies. Only the state can trade with weapons and control their production

• New global humanistic expansion of democracy

• The introduction of criminal liability for the invention of new methods of fraud and new types of weapons of mass destruction. After all, lawmakers cannot know what has not yet been invented!

Direct democracy

According to Wikipedia:

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of currently established democracies, which are representative democracies.

Overview

In a representative democracy people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives. In direct democracy, people decide on policies without any intermediary. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of Sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials, and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.

Direct democracy must expand traditional representative democracy. And the people must be able to abolish, change and initiate laws, recall deputies, presidents and officials.

There are elements of direct democracy in many countries around the world. The German scientist Klaus Hofmann has undertaken to collect all available information. The result is an interactive world map called " Direct Democracy Navigator ". With the help of this "Navigator" you can find every legislative act of a country on this subject with just three clicks.

In most European countries, direct democracy only exists at the local level. Only Switzerland has direct democracy at the state level, and this variant can serve as a model. But changes are also required:

• E-voting. Legislative initiatives, public discussions, collecting signatures, referendums, elections - all of this has to take place on the Internet.

• No amateur deputies, as in Switzerland, where deputies usually have another job

• Democratic processes in Switzerland are running too slowly. Nowadays everything has to go faster.

Fight for direct democracy

German pages:

Abstimmung21 . Together with various initiatives, we are organizing the first nationwide [but not official] referendum in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany.

More democracy is the driving force behind initiated by citizens referendums and improvements to the electoral law. All votes are counted equally and everyone is entitled to participate. This is what we stand for.

“Pro and con” for the direct democracy

Arguments from German: "ABSTIMMUNGSHEFT FÜR DIE VOLKSABSTIMMUNG IM SEPTEMBER 2021" (click will load a German pdf file on the hard disk)

PRO arguments for the introduction of direct democracy

• NEW IDEAS: Direct democracy enables solutions and design proposals from across society to be introduced into the public discussion and political decision-making.

• DIALOGUE AND REALIZATION AT EQUAL LEVEL: People experience self-efficacy: They experience that they can make a difference with their voice

• PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Being able to make decisions yourself and take the risk of being wrong.

• DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED: Direct democracy can take tie parliament back to the interests of the population.

• PUBLIC VOTE IS FORWARD-LOOKING: Without a referendum, democracy is not complete. Everyone must be able to decide for themselves about their own concerns and those of their living environment.

CONTRA ARGUMENTS: AGAINST the introduction of direct democracy

COMPLEXITY TOO HIGH: The introduction of direct democratic elements fails to recognize the complexity of many issues, e.g. budgetary, financial or tax policy issues. Such facts cannot simply be reduced to a pure "yes-no decision".

OBJECTION: Practically functioning systems of direct democracy have never encountered severe difficulties in connection with this deficiency. Voters have always managed to express their will and the details of planning and implementation remain with Parliament.

SPLIT IN SOCIETY: In referendums, only the active and educated classes vote and thus dominate in society as a whole.

OBJECTION: It is not true that today's parliament represents all the interests of the population. Indeed, priority is given to the interests of the elite. Therefore, many people do not trust the existing democratic institutions. Referendums will bring back trust and solidarity.

EXPENSIVE AND INEFFECTIVE: You can't vote on everything all the time. A referendum means considerable effort. Referendums are - compared to parliamentary decisions - more time-consuming and are costly.

OBJECTION: Solution - e-voting. Legislative initiatives, public discussions, collecting signatures, referendums, voting, elections - all of this has to take place on the Internet. It's almost free. It's a shame that you still have to vote on paper.

RISK OF DEMAGOGY: The democratic instruments are available to everyone in society. This means that extremists can also use direct democracy.

OBJECTION: The danger will only increase. (Why? See above: Money flows wash democracy away). Before it's too late, direct democracy can be the solution.

Cave out direct democracy parliaments?

Article at https://www.facebook.com/abstellung21/

On the contrary, direct democracy complements and strengthens the parliaments 💪🏛. Well regulated, it ensures greater transparency 🧐, more responsibility 🥰 and a higher participation level 🤓 vs expectations of the electorate. Parliament is always involved in the procedure: it discusses the referendum 📝 and can negotiate a compromise with the initiators. In the referendum 🗳 it can also put its own counter-draft to the vote. The experience at the municipal and state level in Germany and in other states with direct democracy ′′ from the bottom ′′ ⬆️ shows that no parliament has been abolished or weakened by direct democracy. Direct democracy usually governs more carefully, weighs more precisely and talks more to people instead of deciding over their heads. This is how direct democracy makes representative democracy more representative 😉.

Tyranny of the majority?

"Direct People's Democracy" or "Majority Tyranny"? Popular Power or Populism? These are two opposing views. Personally, I am in favor of direct democracy, but the elites of all countries (except Switzerland) do not want to share their power. In the past, many of the Democrats viewed the idea of ​​direct democracy as harmless stupidity. Nowadays, this idea puts many off.

The situation has changed. Massive popular rallies in recent years have shown the appalling confusion of the population. These are, for example, the protests against the restrictions associated with the epidemic, the support of various conspiracy theories and threats from nationalists. Brexit also turned out to be a mistake that caused a lot of problems.

A conspicuous indicator of the position of the political elite on this issue is a minor scandal in Germany, referring to the "Green" party. Since its inception, this party has fought for the introduction of a "referendum" clause in the constitution. In the last draft amendments, this point disappeared, causing a scandal among supporters of the party.

The Green Party Congress took place in December 2020, and deputies decided, with a 51% lead, to abandon the idea of ​​the "referendum". Instead, they decided to fight for a "people's council" to create councils for the deputies. The rejection of the "referendum" was declared as a danger that the Nazis could destroy democracy with populism and violent methods.

Half a century ago, there was no sign of people going astray in prosperous democracies. In their confrontation with the elite, the population sometimes lost, sometimes achieved economic or political success. What has changed?

What is new is that voters can hardly influence anything, although they vote for members of parliament in free, competitive and democratic elections without falsification. And although they sometimes gain something. Why can't deputies fulfill most of the voters' wishes?

Indeed, the laws of the global capitalist economy form powerful frameworks for every single country, and governments, parliaments, parties and deputies cannot break out of these frameworks. As a result, the interests of big business are always given priority and a significant part of the population is gradually getting poorer every year and losing confidence in the existing democratic institutions and parties.

It is important for us now to understand that in the absence of feedback, voters lose the ability to set reasonable economic and political goals. It's like riding a bike blindfolded. Blindfolded, you never know where the steering wheel will take you - on the opposite lane or against the post.

Let us assume, for example, that a referendum has been introduced in Germany and environmental activists have achieved an immediate shutdown for all "non-green" power plants. This will of course drive up electricity prices. When the government tries to restrict electricity prices, it has to accept temporary blackouts. Either way, the effects will have an impact. The voters would see where their decisions lead. And they would turn away from populist agitators and start listening to experts and even delving into their calculations.

As for cycling, you can't learn to ride a bike if you don't have a bike. And learning has to involve feedback, not blindfolded.

Another example relates to a real situation. The Swiss rejected (at their referendum in summer 2016) the idea of ​​an unconditional basic income (UBI). But the Europeans are now collecting signatures in the context of a petition calling for the introduction of the UBI in all EU countries. In contrast to other Europeans, the Swiss have more than 150 years of experience with direct elections and are able to look at any problem responsibly and foresee the results of their election. But Europeans do not have such skills because it has to be learned in practice.

In the presence of feedback, public opinion manipulation and lobbying technologies lose their influence. During the campaign for Brexit, there was financial support from interested business people and also complete deception of public opinion. Now the British people see that Brexit will bring more losses than benefits. If Britain had direct democracy, the people could reverse their decision.

Unconditional income

It seems that democracy as it is today cannot last forever. Either there will be a qualitative leap or there will be disintegration and destruction. I believe that the first prerequisite for a renewed society must be direct democracy. The second requirement has to be unconditional income. Renewed society should - based on higher productivity in social work - lead to a significant increase in the National Prosperity Index.

There are different ideas about unconditional income. The most popular idea is the Unconditional Basic Income (UBI). According to Wikipedia:

Universal basic income (UBI), also called unconditional basic income, basic income, citizen's income, citizen's basic income, basic income guarantee, basic living stipend, guaranteed annual income, universal income security program or universal demo-grant, is a theoretical governmental public program for a periodic payment delivered to all citizens of a given population without a means test or work requirement. A basic income can be implemented nationally, regionally, or locally.

Citizen's Dividends

In that article I support the citizens' dividends as an alternative to UBI. Citizens should be entitled to receive dividends from the country's natural resources and manufacturing facilities. Natural resources should belong to all humanity, according to the Georgian principle. The country's production facilities were created by workers of several generations. Hence, it will be fair for the owners to split part of their profits into dividends for the citizens.

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) or Citizen's Dividends?

Comparing these two concepts (UBI and Citizen's Dividends) I prefer the second concept - Citizens should receive their dividends.

• The recipients of dividends are turned into politically active and financially savvy citizens, and the recipients of UBI are turned into dependents who do not care where the money comes from or who and how earned it.

• The recipients of dividends are actually the middle class and the backbone of democracy, while the recipients of welfare or UBI can support any political rascal who makes great promises.

• The recipient of the dividends is one of the owners of production facilities and natural resources and participates in the disposal of these resources. Almost nothing depends on UBI recipients.

• The advantage of the idea of ​​citizen dividends is that this idea can be implemented in any country, poor or rich. Dividends can be increased gradually. In the initial phase it would be possible to pay the minimum amount to support the technical and organizational part of the system. Then the payments can be increased gradually in order to maintain the stability of the economy and to adapt the tax and social legislation to new realities.

• Why do we only strive for a basic income? Who determined the level of the basic income? Citizen's dividends can reach a level that is above the basic income! It is not a handout for the poor, but a mean of reducing social inequality to socially acceptable level. This is a fundamental difference between citizen dividends and other unconditional income ideas.

The elites in the industrialized countries are against UBI, but the rich are willing to pay even more taxes to support the existing social system and prevent a revolution. They even managed to reach an agreement on a minimum income tax (15% for multinationals and large corporations, with the tax payment at the place of profit).

However, some billionaires understand that the existing social system is unable to resolve the accumulated contradictions. And they finance experiments, research and debates on the subject of UBI. At the same time, it is tacitly assumed that the UBI will fix the income of the poorest, but the enrichment of the rich can continue.

No elite will voluntarily endorse the idea of the citizens' dividend as it is a direct attack on their exclusive right to acquire the added value from the exploitation of people, natural resources, means of production and information. The recipient of the dividend is practically equated with a shareholder, although the citizen dividends are financed from taxes. This can lead to a redistribution of the "national pie" - the share of the poor in the "national pie" may increase, and the share of the rich may decrease!

Citizen's Dividends Now (CDN)

Recommended "Citizen's Dividends Now" (CDN) is an alternative for unconditional basic income (UBI) that must be based on the following principles:

• CDN can be paid for immediately. First payments can be small, for example 50 euros.

• The aim is to gradually increase CDN payments.

• CDN-pot needs to be emptied every month due to payments to citizens.

• CDN payments are tax-free.

• Payments should be increased gradually to see results and amend legislation.

• Funding of the CDN-pot can be a combination of different methods of taxation, cash creation or even donations.

• Legislation needs to be adjusted regularly to keep the economy stable and increase the flow of money into the CDN pot.

• An increase in CDN payments leads to a reduction in social benefits. The changes may not reduce the amount of the lump-sum income - for all recipients of state benefits.

• The gradual increase in CDN payments can be stopped or even turned back in the event of negative results.

The way to "Citizen's Dividends Now"

The introduction of citizen dividends requires fundamental changes in society that are hardly possible within the framework of traditional representative democracy. First, citizens need to come to power (in the form of direct e-democracy).

The proposed sequence of measures to implement the CDN:

• The first step is to enact in the constitution the right of citizens to receive dividends from the country's natural resources and production facilities. The sum of dividends cannot be determined in advance.

• Solve technical and organizational problems associated with the money transfer from the CDN cash pot to the citizens’ bank card.

• Voters need to change the way new money is used. Newly created money must be transferred directly to the CDN-pot. Perhaps the amount of new money per person varies from 20 to 100 euros per month. At this stage (for example, 3 months), it is necessary to check out all technical solutions so that every citizen can really receive this money. It is also necessary to prepare legislation for the next stage.

• The task of the next stage is to eliminate begging and the system of free food distribution (meal centers, soup kitchen, etc.). To achieve this, the amount of the CDN-payouts can de, for example, 250 euros per month. This will reduce the "caste division" of society, as former beggars and welfare recipients will become respected buyers, who are no strangers to saving. A market-based food distribution system is cheaper for the society than the existing "free of charge" one.

• The purpose of the next step is to provide health insurance for all citizens, including the homeless. There are few such citizens, and the associated costs will be relatively low.

• The increase in CDN payments to 600-800 euros will help eliminate homelessness. This can lead to changes in the rental housing market that may require legal adjustments.

• The next big challenge is to abolish the “means testing”, so that people could get their CDN income without sanction, being controlled, or requiring submit an application. Layoffs in the bureaucratic apparatus will be required. But the saved administrative costs can significantly fill the CDN pot.

• Deregulation of the labor market, the abolition of the minimum wage, the elimination of the "poverty trap", the ability for retirees to work without reducing their pensions - all of these changes will significantly raise social labor productivity. And with that, the CDN payments can raise above the base level.

The steps above illustrate the important idea that introduction of unconditional income cannot be an overnight act. The suggested steps can be supplemented or combined. This process can stumble at every step. But the common goal helps to take the next step forward.

The economic power of the people in the form of citizens' dividends and political power in the form of direct democracy are radically change the society.

• Nobody would be hungry. The free distribution of food and clothing and the associated costs can be eliminated.

• There will be no homeless people. Former homeless shelters can be rented out to the same people.

• There will be no recipients of social benefits who avoid employment for fear to lose their welfare.

• Pensioners who can and want to work will be busy.

• Labor legislation can be minimized. It is currently overwhelmed by a lot of labor protection laws. As a result of simplification of labor legislation, we will get “pure” capitalism with minimal (or even no) government interference in labor relations. This is precisely what the supporters of neoliberalism are striving for, although they do not consent the elimination of "wage slavery."

May be, that the modern economies of Western European countries are capable to provide citizens with dividends in the amount of 1,500 or 2,000 euros. However, an increase of more than € 1,000 requires a redistribution of the incomes of the rich and the super-rich and thus a reduction in social inequality. Most likely, this will be possible only in the community of democratic states with direct democracy.

Who will pay for it?

There are different ideas how to finance the unconditional income (CDN, UBI or something similar).

• Negative income tax is redistribution of existing taxes

• Financing with a large consumption tax that replaces all income-related taxes. This concept was further developed - according to the principles of Götz Werner - by the association "Generation Basic Income" from Austria.

• Taxation of the rich faced major problems. Expecting a significant increase in tax revenue from the rich is unrealistic, as they easily evade taxes without even breaking the law. Most of these problems cannot be solved by a single country. International efforts are required to combat international crime and tax havens. The last G7 summit supported the introduction of an international minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. That can restrict tax wars and increase the cash flow to the CDN pot.

• Environmental and natural resource taxes can also fill the CDN pot.

• Donations. The introduction of unconditional income means the elimination of homelessness and begging. Saved donations can be add to the CDN pot (this is voluntary for church communities or other sponsors). This eliminates highly ineffective support systems for poor people, such as soup kitchens and charity stores.

• Reducing the bureaucratic apparatus is an almost impossible task. As practice shows, the bureaucracy can only grow. However, removing the "neediness" control will free many social workers and job center staff. That can additionally fill the CDN pot.

• Money creation. The amount of created money is determined by the central bank. Redirecting the flow of money to the citizens CDN pot could improve the performance of the economic, because consumers will support the real sector of the economy, and the speculative financial sector will be weakened.

Proposal that Giacomo Corneo presented in his paper "A state fund that finances a social dividend". The author suggests to receive dividends from stocks, placed abroad. I believe voters will not agree to fund the exploitation and human rights abuses. It is immoral to (jointly with the rich) exploit the people of poor countries and to finance the autocrats.

Why is there still no country with unconditional income?

For example, that could have been done by the US economy in the 1960s under the Nixon Plan. During this time, technical progress has significantly increased labor productivity. Is it possible that the modern economy of the industrialized countries cannot offer everyone a basic income? It seems that economics and advanced technology have long been able to provide a basic income for everyone, and it's not about economics, but politics.

The introduction of unconditional income leads to a radical redistribution of power. The power of capital and politicians decreases, while the power of the people increases. For example, it may turn out, that it is not the owner who chooses the employee, but vice versa. This situation scares many off. Politicians can find out, that voters are losing interest in "how the national cake is split" and become concerned about more important issues. Politicians are not ready for such a turn.

It turns out that the power and influence of a wealthy minority is sufficient to prevent any attempt to introduce a full-fledged UBI. In this sense, democracy can be considered fictitious in any country, even the most developed one.

For example, suppose the Italian government, as promised, introduces UBI in the country, increasing taxes on businesses and wealthy owners. Capital will immediately flow from the country in different directions, and factories and building sites will stop working. As a result, the entire population will be affected by that disaster.

These reasoning reveal an invisible wall that stop all unconditional income enthusiasts. To use Marxist terminology, we have a contradiction between the base and the superstructure. The base makes it possible to have UBI, but the superstructure does not.

Experiment or fight for Citizens' Dividends?

The reason why Citizen Dividends (or UBI) has not yet been implemented is because it goes against capital interests. And new experiments cannot change these interests. Authorities do not accept Unconditional Income regardless of experiment's results!

Therefore, I see additional experimentation as a distraction from real problems. It's the high time to stop experimenting with UBI in developed countries. It is better to use the available resources for education and propaganda and for organizing the citizens struggle for their rights.

Who will be the first?

Unconditional income will be introduced in these countries, in which the population will actively fight for it.

Possible steps of introducing unconditional income are considered on the example of Germany. However, Switzerland is the number one candidate for unconditional income, since direct democracy already exists there.

And if the Communist Party of China guesses to introduce an unconditional income, it will further accelerate the Chinese economy by increasing domestic demand. If they dare this, it would be a moral (and then economic and military) defeat for liberal democracy.

Authoritarian International

update: 18-11-2021

Alexey Shaburov (Алексей Шабуров): This is just a hybrid war with the "democratic West" as such

There is an intuitive (not based on scientific analysis) feeling that a kind of "authoritarian international" may emerge in the world.

It will be an informal union of authoritarian states, for which authoritarianism and the denial of "Western democracy" and human rights will in themselves be a unifying principle. These countries may have different religions, different economic structures, different values (conventionally - Turkey, China, Belarus - what do they have in common?). But divisions were pushed aside for the sake of unification in the struggle against "democracy."

That is, autocracy and authoritarianism become ideology in and of themselves, turning into a political value for very strong players. And I think that this can be a very powerful movement - if only they act quickly and manage not to quarrel at some point.

For example:

2021.12.16 CNBC

China and Russia show solidarity, but likely won’t support each other militarily, analysts say.

2022.01.20 The Guardian UK’s Liz Truss warns Russia of ‘terrible quagmire’ if it invades Ukraine Foreign secretary says emboldened autocracies are seeking to export dictatorship around the world

Liz Truss, the UK foreign secretary, has warned Russia that any invasion of Ukraine would only lead to “a terrible quagmire and loss of life” on the scale of the Soviet-Afghan war.

Speaking at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Australia, Truss framed the Ukraine conflict as part of a wider dispute between what she saw as liberal states and autocracies, including Russia and China.

...Truss claimed autocracies were “emboldened in a way we haven’t seen since the cold war. They seek to export dictatorship as a service around the world. That is why regimes like Belaeus, North Korea and Myanmar find their closest allies in Moscow and Beijing.”

Achilles' heel of democracy

An inherent flaw in democratic governance is slowness. An inherent flaw in democratic governance is slowness. Democracies remind me of a prehistoric dinosaur, which only in the evening realizes that its tail was bitten off in the morning.

For example, a human rights court makes a decision 10 years after the incident. Is that a normal time frame?

5 years after the Russian hackers attacked the Bundestag, Merkel condemns this action. Is this a normal reaction in a hybrid war?

With the outbreak of mass protests in Belarus, the Lukashenka regime began repressions immediately. Only after a two months imposed EU first sanctions. The consequences of the sanctions cannot be observed, but the effectiveness of Lukashenka's repression forces is evident - he managed to suppress and intimidate an entire folk.

What conclusions can autocrats and dictators draw for themselves? In Biden's words, "Both Putin and Xi Jinping have indicated to me that they don’t think democracies can work in the 21st century because it takes too long to arrive at a consensus; that’s why autocracies are going to win the day."

The cure for slack democracy

Coupled with the acceleration of scientific and technological progress, the speed of decision making process becomes a question of survival.

The solution is called - direct democracy. It seems counter-intuitive. In Switzerland, for example, it takes much longer than a year to put a question to a referendum! The answer has to be e-democracy: e-governance, e-voting and artificial intelligence. Direct democracy and the latest technologies can and should turn a disadvantage into an advantage.

Artificial intelligence makes it possible to predict the will of the people and the results of the next elections or referendums. These results can be used for both decision making (including rush decisions) and regulation. Nowadays, there are some ready to use Internet resources that can be used for this. But to date, there are no legitimate democratic procedures for the use of AI or internet resources in lawmaking or public administration.

After the rigged presidential elections in Belarus in 2020, many people took to the streets to protest manipulation and repression and in support of the elected president, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. The next day, Lukashenko called a big meeting in support of him. Despite the administrative pressure, fewer Lukashenka supporters gathered. Street actions expressed the will of the people - it couldn't be clearer!

In democratic countries, the will of the people expressed in street actions must be legally implemented! There should be no technical problems when counting the “participants”. AI can easily count anyone with the help of satellite imagery. Police officers also have experience in determining the number of participants at public events.

What is the name of such an action of the people? This is not a revolution since we are not talking about overthrowing the existing system. Let's call it: "Street referendum". Such a street referendum can be a reaction to any event, arise spontaneously and have no initiators. Who and how will express the will of the people in the form of a law or a government decree?

Despite the difficulties, the "street referendum" needs to be legalized. Moreover, the people's right to revolution must be inserted in the constitution of every democratic country.

League of Democracies

The idea of ​​a League of Democracies (or a global alliance) emerged in the 195s.

An effort

Before the US presidential elections in 2008, US Senator McCain had already proposed the idea of ​​a "League of Democracies" that should unite countries that support the ideas of free and fair elections, the rule of law and respect for human rights and who fight against despotism, fascism and totalitarianism . According to McCain, this community could include EU countries, India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey and Israel, but not Russia and China.

This plan was not confirmed because it contradicts the interests of the capitalists. As we already know, democracy is rather an obstacle for large corporations in their attempts to abandon social obligations. On the other hand, autocrats and dictators are welcome because they allow for large profit margins.

December 9, 2021. Biden calls on leaders to end ‘backward slide’ of democracy.

New efforts

However, the situation has changed due to the growth of the economic and political influence of China and other authoritarian countries. Traditional Western capital is simply marginalized in the global economy. Under these conditions, Western capitalists are ready to unite to protect their interests.

US President Joe Biden declared the defense of democracy into a key part of its National Security Strategy. "Authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide," said the President's "Preliminary Strategic Guideline for National Security" ... published by the White House. "We will stand together with our allies and partners to combat new threats targeting our democracies."

So now a "union of democracies" is being built - in words to protect democracy but actually - to protect the interests of western capital.

True union of democracies

A completely different situation arises with the unification of democratic countries in which direct democracy has won. Then the real goal of politics will not be the interests of capital, but the interests of the people. In such conditions, it becomes possible:

• Achieve higher rates of economic growth than in authoritarian countries

• Subordination of foreign trade and financial markets to political goals

• Maintain military superiority over authoritarian countries

• Shifting from defense to attack in the ongoing hybrid war

• Destruction of the global arms market

• Achievement of general reduction and destruction of weapons of mass destruction, relying on military superiority.

• Redirecting the released resources to solving environmental problems

• Support democratic movements in authoritarian countries

• Protecting countries that have embarked on a democratic path of development

• ...

To support economic growth and increase the well-being of citizens, the following measures are proposed:

• To reduce social inequality, introduce more progressive taxes (on income, property and inheritance) for individuals

• Eliminate "tax wars"

• Elimination of offshore oases

• Make tax evasion and money laundering impossible

• Support scientific and technological progress

• Support non-capitalist mode of production

• ...

[e-mail]