Divine works


eng deu рус


Flat Science:

It is also "Deliberative Network", "Network Science", Citizen Science, "Positive Science".

The "Deliberative Network" is not a scientific network for non-scientists ,
This is the scientific network:
1. Flat, non-hierarchical . In this case, the subject hierarchy can be used, regardless of people;
2. Open ai , in which academic titles do not play a role. In it, exclusive doctoral titles in themselves mean nothing.
It will combine absolute competition with absolute cooperation.

"Network science" is not just a science that uses the Internet, but a network, flat organization of science, which is the main factor, the basis of its effectiveness.

Why is the Deliberative Network needed?:

The deliberative network is necessary for the survival of mankind:
Socio-political polarization is now a threat to the survival of humanity.
Socio-political polarization, in turn, is generated by economic polarization in society.
- If 100 people own half of the wealth in a society, then one way or another they convert their economic position into a political one.

2nd function of the "Deliberative Network" - Scientific counter-propaganda:

see: Flat Counter-Propaganda and Deliberative Network.docx

"Deliberative Network" is a social network focused on finding optimal solutions. Results- oriented - social, not commercial.

The existence of Divinity depends on the Deliberative Network:

It was for the reasons given here that I initiated in 1990 the creation of the "Deliberative Structure".
After the failure, I did not begin to make new attempts. Yes, Perestroika failed, but there have been worse disasters.
However, in 2017, I returned to the "case" due to the appearance of new circumstances in it.
- The use of AI as a psychic weapon against people today makes even the former "democratic" systems unsustainable.
The Flat Deliberative Network is perhaps the only possibility for the survival of free Humanity, and the Divinity attached to it.

 

The difference between the purpose of the Deliberative Network:

There are many "Think tanks" and "Analytical" centers.
But there is not a single analytical structure aimed at developing - solutions - directly for people.
- All "Think Tanks" are guided by politicians, the state, business, etc.
And not a single "Analytical" center develops solutions for action. They only make recommendations.
The deliberative network does not make binding decisions for someone either, but it develops ready-made solutions. People can act according to their own decisions, but their decisions will always be inferior in terms of the degree of scientificity , depth of study, "professionalism" and effectiveness of the decisions developed by the Deliberative Network.
Examples of typical solutions, algorithms developed by the Deliberative Network:
- How to organize a flat management of a trade union, an enterprise, a municipality?
- What laws to achieve, and how - much more effective methods are possible than protest.

The flat organization, open and public properties of the Deliberative Network are derivatives. -
They are optimal - for the purpose of the Deliberative network.

Democracy doesn't work

On the first hand, the meaning of Democracy lies in the separation of political power from economic power.
The struggle in the West for the expansion of the political rights of the people, including for voting rights at the beginning of the 20th century, eliminated the absolutism of the political power of the main owners.
On the 2nd side, Democracy doesn't work. - In "democratic" states, the actual political influence of social groups is still proportional to their economic wealth.

Justice is not an end in itself:

Economic homogeneity in society is not the main goal today.
It's just a side effect.
The standard of living is rising, despite the growth of economic polarization, in the "democratic" countries, no one goes hungry.
There is no point in organizing a civil war just because of economic equality.
The goal is the survival of free humanity.

Property liberalization and social polarization:

At the same time, economic polarization can be eliminated, for example, through property liberalization.
See Liberalization of Property and Liberal Socialism.docx # Bankruptcy Law Instead of Bankruptcy

Roughly speaking, the 100 richest owners could hire an army.
But the army could not defeat the armed people.
Liberalization of property would drastically lower the average rate of return, and the owners would simply not be praised for the money to put a terrorist on every person.

The cause of economic polarization is actually propaganda.
The main factor in the success of anti-folk propaganda is the absence of directly popular theory.
- The stability of social polarization is primarily ensured not by violence, but by the control of social science.

The US is a highly economically non-liberal country:

In the US, there are no market relations in the main area - private property.
At the same time, there is no freedom of scientific research in the USA.
In the US, there is actually a taboo on modeling in the most important field of science for the survival of mankind - in the field of market property relations in political economics .

 

Option to start building the "Deliberative Network" - From the "Questions and Answers" service:

For 30 years there have been numerous Q&A services.
These are commercial Projects powered by advertising revenue.
"Deliberative network" may begin to develop, as an option - from such a service.

see also: Wiki-start of the Deliberative network.docx

Signs, principles of such a Service:

1. Subject hierarchy :
A hierarchy of a complex problem is developed. – Sub-problems are highlighted in the Problem .
2. " Moderation from below". Lack of moderators.
Only the people themselves have the right to decide who and what they do not want to see.
Of course, there may be recommendations, but only - P 2 P .
3. Lack of hierarchy and fixed specialization of people, "Flat science".
For example, the subject hierarchy is developed - only by the people themselves.
Of course, it is advisable to use the ratings of people according to their various properties.
However, such ratings should only be automatic.

Publicity levels:

Insult, manipulation of self-esteem is one of the effective methods of the Kremlin agents.
In particular, with the help of personal insults, trolls "extinguish" the constructiveness of discussions on web forums.
The Kremlin is purposefully cultivating a culture of intolerance and self-affirmation by suppressing other people.
This method is part of the method of atomizing society, preventing the emergence of organized competition and a hierarchical system.

The optimal organization of counteraction to this method seems to be - Levels of publicity.
They are an implementation of the " Moderation from below" principle.
Publicity levels are the levels of publicity of communication, which the participant himself chooses.

Principle, method of unanimity:

The 1st level of publicity is personal correspondence, " personal ".
The participant himself chooses the interlocutors with whom he is ready to share the most doubtful thoughts.
Such interlocutors are likely to be unanimous people.
- If the interlocutor has identical desires and goals, then criticism from him is perceived not as a desire to get the better of the interlocutor, not as an insult, but as a desire to find a solution.
Together, unanimous people will be able to reduce the "dampness" of ideas, eliminate the main shortcomings and "glitches" in order to let ideas go to the next level of discussion, publicity.

In addition, the " Moderation from below" method can work in conjunction with confidentiality methods when discussing security issues, such as military ones.

They don't don't want - they are not allowed:

 

Openness of the Deliberative Network:

There are no qualifying exams in the Deliberative Network and no need to prove one's scientific qualifications, for example, by defending a dissertation.
That is, the Deliberative Network is a completely open club, with no barriers to entry.
The only reason for the openness of the Deliberative Network is the ease of political control of the qualification commissions of "scientists",

The Deliberative network is intended primarily for:
1. Non-democratic countries.
2. Political sciences.

Science and non-science:

The authoritarian authorities are very effective in controlling academic qualification commissions so that oppositional views are not present in them.
Thus, social "science" in such countries turns out to be extremely distorted, and cannot be called science.
Accordingly, those who are called "scientists" in the media are not.
Conversely, those who are not considered scientists are.
Of course, in the absence of a "license" for activity - 90% of research will be "nonsense". -
The idea of the Deliberative Network is to constantly prove the scientific level of research in front of other members of the Deliberative Network.
The idea of the Deliberative Network is that the process of assessing the scientific level can be 90% automated - today, in the age of AI .

Can "scientists" from authoritarian countries do scientific research in "democratic" countries? - Almost not:

A. _ Authoritarian regimes build numerous barriers to ensure that opposition researchers cannot defend their qualifications - in the West.
There are 2 economic barriers to protecting scientific qualifications in this way:
1. In authoritarian states
For example, it is - the rate of local currencies against Western currencies is maintained at a low level.
2. In the very West.

The openness of the Deliberative Network means, among other things, the absence of an economic qualification.
That is, any shepherd from Uganda with access to StarLink can engage in scientific research . and, at the same time, receive feedback and scientific communication with colleagues.
It is in the organization of alternative scientific communication that the meaning and purpose of the Deliberative Network lies.
The social, collective factor is critical for the effectiveness of scientific research.

b . Political science is politicized not only in authoritarian states, but also in "democratic" ones, although to a lesser extent.
Political science in pseudo-"free" states is not free.
It is strongly distorted by the mechanisms of financing and licensing of scientific activity too.

Corporate interests in science:

If representatives of the state, politicians finance science, then, one way or another, they will create a framework for research directions.
Politicians are interested in the results of the political sciences - directly.
There is a demand for scientists - certain areas.
And, conversely, scientists in these areas, since there is a demand for them, can dictate not only their price, but also exclusive rights for themselves.
There is a closed quasi -and - "scientific" corporation.

Anti-Communism as a Factor of Aberration in Social Science in the USA:

The hypotheses presented here below appear to be nonsense on the grounds that such theories are absent in Western science.
However, one must take into account the fact that Western social science itself is biased.
I will give one more - indirect justification for this - on the example of the science of communism:

Stalinism is being studied by Western scholars - tendentiously.
Its external manifestations are shown quite correctly.
But the analysis of its causes is distorted by the " social order ".
Western scholars present communism as a purely repressive regime that was based on repression and, in part, on propaganda.
However, any repressive regime today is democratic in the sense that it rests on the approval of the people.
With significant abuses of power by the rulers, there will always be an organizer or a party from among the poor who will lure the soldiers to their side, if only due to the fact that the rebels will not have extra expenses, since they are beggars and they will not have extra costly ambitions aimed at such as foreign wars.

 

the political economy of capitalism quite deeply and adequately , but they did not create a working alternative. -
However, despite the fact that people in the USSR in 1920-30 lived and worked in inhuman conditions, they themselves preferred them to living conditions before 1917. It was the same generation.
Communist propaganda played a secondary role.
It was not as sophisticated as Putin's 21st century scientific demagogy, did not aim at deceit per se, and did not use feedback in the form of sociological research and Big Data.
People listened to communist agitators, because their "propaganda" was in tune with the feelings of the people themselves.
This means that before 1917, people in Russia - under "capitalism" "morally" lived even worse than under Stalin.
Here it is necessary to take into account the moral aspect, in addition to the purely economic one - the humiliation of people by the entire vertical of royal power.

 

Communism's mistake:

The model of communism - the capitalists hire the government, roughly speaking
Anarchist model - the government is based on the rich class. Those in power - on those in power.
The truth is in the middle, but much closer - to the model of anarchism

The "triumphant march of Soviet power" in Russia in 1917 happened because the communists made an alliance with the "tsarist" rulers, made the shopkeepers scapegoats, and set the workers against the peasants ("petty bourgeois"), according to the principle of "divide and rule."

 

The Americans themselves are to blame:

Kremlin propaganda is only partly to blame for the fact that Russians consider Americans to be enemies.
The Americans are partly to blame for this - themselves.
In the 1990s, as a result of, among other things, the criminal full support of the Administration of the President of the United States of America for the Administration of the President of Russia, and the advice of advisers from the United States, the quality of life of ordinary Russian people fell by almost an order of magnitude (almost 10 times).
"It turned out that building radical capitalism in Russia was more important for the US than building democracy." ( Savranskaya S.)
The strangulation of Euro-Communism was more important to the US Government than the prospect of Putinism in Russia.

In 1990, I proposed not to rely on otherwise interested parties, but to figure it out and develop a plan - ourselves - with the help of the "Self-Organization of the Deliberative Structure".
However, no one responded.

One of the main mechanisms of stability of authoritarian regimes:

Alternative political opposition programs should be developed - by scientists - in today's complex society.
However, opposition scholars do not exist.
Consequently, there can be no competitive alternative political Programs.

"Technological power":

Science and technology is controlled by the state - through rationing, licensing, "regulation".
Technologies are engaged in - "executive power", sectoral officials.
They study plans for construction, "development" - industrial complexes, even individual shacks, and give permits.
This happens not only in Russia, but also in "democratic" Europe.
Journalists suggest, and the authorities decide what to develop - either "green energy", or nuclear, to build, or a "Digital Government" convenient for the authorities and a technological "New Brave World".
People influence decision-making - protests, and the authorities - directly, very effective "levers".
At the same time, people are not tech-savvy. They are engaged only in their narrow profession, where they earn money.
People are protesting only because they listen to the opinions of experts on TV, half of which "explain" the position of the same "executive power".
This is dangerous, because here, too, there are opportunities for improving social manipulation by "technological lobbyists" of various directions.
Power through the "regulation" of technology development is even more important than the "judiciary" today.
In the ancient world, "Technological Power" did not exist due to the underdevelopment of technology. Today everything depends on technology.
Science and technology should be controlled by the people.
It's not about democracy, but about the threat to Humanity.
The purpose of the Deliberative Network is to regulate the development of technology - directly by people.

 

Deep investments:

Today, mainly statistical theories of investment methods are being developed, for example, various methods of "Technical Analysis".
However, statistical methods are absolutely non-competitive in comparison with the methods of "Depth Analysis".

3rd purpose of the "Deliberative Network":

The 3rd purpose of the "Deliberative Network" is "Deep Analysis".
"Deep analysis" is not a "technical" financial, but a technological analysis, it is a "Factor cost optimization", it is an analysis of the prospects of development directions - at the physical level.
This is not just a comparative analysis of development directions, it is a network search for optimal technological solutions.

" Uber " - economicization :

In the IT era, the best investors will be organizations - directly the developers themselves.
It's like " Uber " - a taxi information service.
The service itself is centralized, but it is not the owner of the property (cars).
, decentralized information services will be more competitive .

Factor "Decrease in industry":

The vast majority of industrial equipment will be similar in cost to automobiles. -
- Large "blast furnaces" will be non-competitive .
For example, in wildlife, chemical factories turned out to be optimal - nano-sized.
In the economy, the optimal equipment will be - in the middle - in the size and cost of cars.

Acceleration:

Classical "capitalists" have nothing to be afraid of. -
Yes, all sorts of independent petty and union proprietors will compete "for food" and thus lower the average rate of profit.
However, the process of ousting classical rentier owners will be a long one.
It is only important to be in time and not let the rentier use Super - AI - a manipulative weapon against people.

 

Russkiy Mir and the Deliberative Network:

On the 1st side - in Russia, Citizen Science and the "Deliberative Network" are needed 10 times more than in the West,
On the second hand, in Russia they are 10 times less developed, for example, judging by the Russian-language section of Wikipedia . - State terror is affecting. terrorists (FSB, etc.)

There is no objective knowledge in the social sciences:

Firstly, the objects of the social sciences are much more complex than those of the natural ones;
Secondly, Feedback works. -
- Today, science has become the main socio-political factor.
It is similar to Quantum physics - The object of observation changes properties due to observation.
There are no objective facts, only opinions - in the social sciences.
"Scientific concepts and theories in the social sciences are just as much social constructs as any other."

Example: Economic theories:

Even seemingly purely mathematical economic theories "work" poorly. -
- Despite their complexity, their models are unacceptably simplified.
In particular, they take into account the psychology of people very poorly.
- People are extremely irrational creatures.
Behavioral psychology began to be taken into account only in recent years, and very primitively.
And this is not the fault of science. - To calculate the interaction of 10 billion people, the calculation capacities will not be enough for another 1000 years.

"Class" interests in science:

Even "independent" social scientists depend on funding.
This is how "class" interests in science manifest themselves.
This is the most significant other feedback and distortion factor.
This is not even necessarily a social order . Enough focus on the expected donations .

Free "Deliberative network":

Accordingly, the ideas of the "Deliberative Network"

1. Free.

Yes, it also involves donations - on the principles of the "Gift Economy".
However, the main mechanism is a real free of charge.

2. Representativeness of donations :

100% transparency will allow everyone to see from which social strata donations come .
Here, some inversion is advisable - a greater weight of donations - from the poor.

3. Flat structure:

Even distributed donations . received by a hierarchical scientific organization will be strongly distorted if they do not come in P 2 P .

Professionalism and dilettantism:

Edge question:
What is more valuable for survival - professional terrorism or amateurish anti-terrorism?

But it is not all that bad. -
- The use of IT , AI in flat scientific networks can make them more efficient, "professional" than modern hierarchical pseudo-independent scientific organizations.

The complication of science:

Science is getting more and more complex in the 21st century. -
To justify and calculate the Faraday coil, one Faraday was enough
To prove and calculate Smartphone you need an organized team.
Today it is a centralized organization.
The more complex technical products, the more proven must be their more numerous parts. Justification is no longer enough.
There are fewer and fewer singles in science.

The time of singles in science has passed:

1. Science has become more complex in terms of subject matter.
2. Research technologies have changed.
Modern information systems and AI have made the labor of studying sources and rewriting unnecessary .
3. Science has indeed become the main production factor.
As a result, the number of scientists and developers often exceeds the number of workers.
Due to intellectual limitations, a loner in science is no longer able to replace the network crowd of researchers.
"Deliberative network" - this is the proposal to develop a rationally effective organization of network science.

Dilettantism?

"Civil science" has been around for a long time.
But it exists as the use of the "crowd" by professional scientists, for example, where a large investment of time is required and qualifications are not required.
Here we are talking about the form of organization of science itself, and not about the simple use of the "crowd".

"Flat Science" # is not a "Collective Mind" -

- in the traditional sense:
By "collective intelligence" is often meant a simple averaging of opinions.
The idea of "Flat Science" is to find optimal solutions - through very active discussions,
The idea of "Flat Science" is to use IT , AI to optimize the discussions themselves,
The "Flat Science" hypothesis is that by structuring discussions, their effectiveness can be greatly increased.
The optimal, that is, the most effective structure of discussions will outwardly look like a hierarchy. - The opinion of "geniuses" will be valued higher. But it will be an objective, impersonal hierarchy, and not a hierarchy of people and attributes of power, interests and incentives.

Previously, in manual mode, structuring the discussion of a million participants was impossible, the most effective method of organization was hierarchy.
AI capabilities for "Flat Science" should keep up with the potential opportunities, since the AI capabilities are simultaneously used by the hierarchy.
Being ahead of the hierarchy in this matter is the question of the survival of Mankind.

Political Economy Differences:

Political economy is a politicized science. -
- The economic interests of groups of influence work in it.
And what is at stake is not 1 million dollars of the Nobel Prize from a jury uninterested in the victory of a particular theory, but trillions of dollars of profit

Political economy is a field of science - artificial - in contrast to the natural sciences.
If only correct theories are possible in objective physics, then in the relatively far-fetched Political Economy there should be many competing complex theories.

If physics can be modeled reliably enough - a priori - on the basis of previous proven theories, then Political Economy must be a purely experimental science.

Large scale feasibility study:

Large-scale feasibility study is one of the main purposes and benefits of the Flat Deliberative Network.
In modern corporations, major technical decisions are made centrally.
Hired scientists are instructed to do analysis and justification within the framework of already accepted concepts, and engineers to calculate - details, "cogs".
At the same time, optimal and very profitable development trajectories are missed.
The centralized system creates specific career conditions and requirements.
It is very rare when a genius like Elon Musk is at the head of a large corporation.
But even Musk's options are severely limited.

The hypothesis here is that, using modern IT capabilities, a Flat Scientific Organization can instantly find truly optimal solutions and development trajectories.

An indicator of the effectiveness of Free Science is the ratio of use by the population of Applications (SW (Software)) from independent and corporate developers.
At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the use of monopolistic mechanisms by corporate developers.

An illustration can also serve as a personal computer, or a chemical battery. -
For example, Potentially, a very promising technical and economic direction is almost not modeled, not analyzed - in Corporations.
(Concepts MOE\Concept Electro-chemical battery\Chemical battery Concept.docx )
In today's increasingly complex technical and economic environment, optimal modeling can only be carried out by - Flat organization.

"The people are not a political entity -

He doesn't understand what he wants."
Democracy - "democracy" will always be a " scam " on behalf of the people - if there is no adequate social toolkit.
Nevertheless, this " scam " provided a good life for the people - in the West.
However, from now on, the main problem is the instability of "Managed Democracy".
This does not mean that the well-being of the people will begin to decline, or freedoms will decrease, like Russia.
The problem of the loss of human sovereignty is a delayed problem.
Negative manifestations will appear only after 300 years - after gaining 100% controllability by people.
And the most negative manifestation may be the death of mankind.

"Positive Science":

Modern science is negative. “It is based on the presumption of fallacy.
In it - in the form of scientific articles, etc. only evidence accumulates.
It does not develop - hypothetical constructions.

Separating evidence from hypotheses:

In conventional science, hypotheses need to be proved—at once.
Other scientists are shown hypotheses only with evidence.

Hypothesis cataloging:

IT allows today to effectively build complex, complex hypotheses independently of each other.

 

Hypotheses matter:

Hypotheses have no less value, and in today's science even more than evidence.
IT allows today not to lose a single hypothesis, allow developing 1000 complex models simultaneously with the participation of 1000 modelers in each.

 

Surely my "Hypotheses" are not-optimal.
But they are intended to be only seeds - to find optimal solutions.
My thesis is that:
1. Existing solutions are far from optimal, and
2. Optimal solutions are not even sought - for socio-political reasons.

 

A free society must begin with free science.
Science must be separated from the state.
There should be no Ministry of Science.
The state should not control the generation of rules for the life of science.
Scientific degrees and positions should not matter in science.
Science should be flat.

 

Positions and ratings :

The difference between ratings and positions:
Ratings do not give any exclusive rights to manage other people.
They have a purely informational function - for donors and contractors.
Contractors-developers agree on interactions between themselves - individually.

Ratings are diverse, they cover different properties - both psychological and objective.
They are calculated - automatically, as a rule.
They are incomparably more flexible than rights established through procedures based on laws and regulations and involving people.

 

Examples of problems and solutions:

An example of social problems : Corruption of "Management companies", KSK:

(“KSK” stands for “Apartment Owners Cooperative”).
In fact, KSK, as a rule, is a cooperative not of tenants, but of scammers who take advantage of the disunity of tenants.
Back in the 1990s, the head of the local government, together with crafty fraudsters, privatized the basements of apartment buildings - with numerous violations of the Law. They fabricated and falsified the decisions of the tenants - deceived them - for example, they said that they were collecting their signatures for something completely different, they paid bribes to "experts", judges, etc.
Fraudsters are interested in hierarchy. - They organize pseudo- " elections" of the "senior in the house" chosen by them, who is immediately corrupted, and who has representative functions - makes decisions on behalf of unsuspecting tenants. “It’s better to pay one person than all tenants.
Now, income from rental of premises, etc. criminals conduct election campaigns and become deputies of the "Parliament".
As a result, the "Parliament" consists of 90% of criminals who change the Laws - irreversibly, so that it becomes possible to return the legal working state only with the help of an uprising.

Possible benefits of the "Deliberative Network":

Schemes of "privatization" of premises, sanatoriums, etc. are of the same type.
1. It is possible to develop an algorithm for transparency, detection of violations;
The cause of poverty and arbitrariness is legal illiteracy and ignorance of the residents.
2. Offer residents a clear methodology for free re-privatization and receiving rent from their home.

Further - more - the income from your home is negligible compared to the income that, for example, the population of Russia can receive.
It is possible that it would be optimal to start re-privatization not with the "Management Companies", but with something else. - This could also be found by the "Deliberative Network".
"Flat democracy is, among other things, the minimization of representation . ( see: Manifesto of Flat Democracy.docx )
- Representation can be limited only to the incapacitated and children.

An example of social problems: Strike in France. "Weird Democracy"

more precisely, quasi -democracy - in France:
The French have elected a President and Parliament who want to increase the retirement age.
At the same time, the majority of the French are opposed to raising the retirement age.
It turns out that most of the French are on strike against themselves.
Of course, perhaps the political system simply makes the French politically infantile.
However, a mechanism that is close to the mechanism that works in authoritarian states seems more likely - according to Example y -1 .
At the same time, corruption in the form of bribes is not obligatory. - Enough selective political technologies .

Semi-democracy, Under -democracy:

Formally, in Russia-democracy-Putin actually gets> 50% of the vote.
At the same time, most Russians have neither faith in Putin nor respect for him.
“It’s just that people can’t influence anything at all.
"If my vote means nothing, then why not get at least a piece of cookies for it."
But if in Russia in fact - authoritarianism = lack of democracy,
Then in France - semi-democracy - people can achieve something only by a nationwide strike. And that is not always the case. – The retirement age has been increased in 2023.
- The solution of serious issues through their deputies and parties, as in Russia, does not work.

Non-social "Industrial Democracy:

Contrary to popular belief, there was competition in the USSR between "firms " - developers, and no less than in the USA.
There were no less "firms" themselves - the developers of aircraft and rockets - in the USSR than in the USA.
What was missing in the USSR was the democracy of making technical decisions "on the job", which in turn was based on the lack of rights of employees.
In the USSR, the social rights of workers, but not their rights as workers, were well protected, in particular by collective agreements.
Instead of the independent responsibility of each employee, there was a concentration of responsibility with the boss, and, accordingly, his arbitrariness.
"Chief engineers" decided everything - individually. There was no - equal technical discussion.
This was the main reason why the technology in the USSR turned out to be worse than in the USA. -
According to several characteristics, on which they reported to their superiors, the aircraft in the USSR were the best, but in general they were less competitive.
Employees in the United States were given contractual independent liability to investors, since it was beneficial for them to make a profit.
In the USSR, all power and all money were at the disposal of the bosses, respectively, this model of a monopoly of power extended to the very bottom.
Social rights in the USSR were the price to pay for the lack of industrial freedom.

Possible benefits of the "Deliberative Network":

It is possible to develop an algorithm of transparency and simplification, which will allow the French themselves to find informed solutions, optimal = most effective for solving problems.

 

Hypothesis: Focus on wages instead of focus on taxes - for the survival of Mankind:

In modern states, there are uniform taxation systems focused on the average profitability of enterprises.
At the same time, individual skilled owners and investors not only pay taxes, but also receive good profits.
Thus, a "class" of successful entrepreneurs is formed, who make up only a small fraction of all "capitalists".
However, they receive quite a lot of money.
Part of the profits is spent on lobbying politicians who are in line with the interests of these successful entrepreneurs.
They don't want bribes. Enough propaganda and demagogy.
The deceived semi-reasonable, non-rational and uninformed electorate will voluntarily choose whom they "need" to their own detriment.
For example, the role of the media was proved by the elections in Russia in 1996.
The threat is that propaganda will become more and more perfect.
The use of Super-AI will give absolute power over people. -
- The new absolutism will be "soft", it will not rely on violence at all.

Is there a way to avoid the End of History?
Yes it:

Marketability of Differential Profit:

Give legal rights to trade unions to participate not in management, but in the disposal of property.
Naturally, the Trade Unions will choose the owner who will provide higher wages.
Thus, the excess profit will be "smeared" into salaries, will not be concentrated and will not be able to pay for AI propaganda .
There will be no "expropriation" in this case. – The former owner will receive payment for the property. It just won't be able to keep accumulating profits.
Of course, there are craftsmen who at the same time provide the highest possible salaries, and at the same time will receive considerable profit.
However:
1. They will have an order of magnitude less such craftsmen and money than modern "successful entrepreneurs".
2. Rules are possible that prohibit the closed enterprises, and help the expansion of successful enterprises so that the salaries of their workers will be aligned with the average for the profession.

Hypothesis example: Workers' strike at the PNZ ( Oil Refining ) in France:

"Democratic" propaganda blamed the workers for the lack of gasoline at gas stations (gas stations) in France.
Due to the war in Ukraine, oil prices have risen sharply.
Ownership profits have skyrocketed. Wages of workers have fallen due to inflation caused by higher energy prices.
The "democratic" government of France is going to use the army to ensure the delivery of oil and gasoline.
But the strikers themselves are happy to deliver gasoline to gas stations. - If they get money for it from those who pay for gasoline at gas stations.

It's not even about corruption. -
It is more convenient for officials of a centralized state to receive taxes from centralized "producers".

The hypothesis is that it is possible to do without centralized taxes at all.
Taxes provide honey. help those same workers?
But if the workers get the full price, they can pay for the honey. help many times over.
Why do we need an intermediary who first takes away and then distributes - according to his own whim, supposedly "representative"?
Will there be "anarchy" without intermediaries?
- IT allows today to replace the state in all its functions.

This is not communism. - Communism, on the contrary, was the centralization of property in the hands of officials, the maximum centralization.
This is not the abolition of "property", but only its weakening, mobilization, demonopolization, inclusiveness .
"Property" has always been relative.
It's just that "property", competitively, according to inertialess = market competition, can pass to that which gives a higher price for it = in the form of workers' salaries.

Perhaps this Complex Hypothesis is nonsense.
But she is just an example to illustrate Flat Science.

 

No taxes (Hypothesis):

Instead of taxes:
1. Norms of pensions, benefits, etc.
2. Mechanisms for horizontal transfer of money from income recipients to recipients of pension benefits, etc.

 

Market "taxes" (Hypothesis):

"Taxes" can be a centralized analogue Market "salaries"
The idea is that:
1. Trade union or the like. the self-government organization has property;
2. The property is transferred to the Management Company, which will pay a larger amount of "taxes" to this local government.

This model differs from the traditional one only in that the owner is an organization - a trade union, local government, or the like.
Today, apparently, this is the most stable, compromise model. -
- A self-governing trade union using IT technologies should have more political power than the traditional lobbying institutions of "employers".

The second function of the Deliberative Network can be precisely group management and coordination, the rapid adoption of practical decisions by large groups of people.

HTAS (" High - tech -anarcho-syndicalism"):

Trade unions can win only through constructive activity instead of negative, destructive strikes, etc., only by creating economic mechanisms that are competitive with traditional ones.

Factors :

1. IT -technologies - Increase the relative efficiency of group management and coordination;
2. IT -technologies - Simplify professional management. Created:
– Insufficiency of the market supply of labor force of developers,
– Redundancy of the market supply of management;
3. IT -technologies reduce the cost of information transfer and processing by 4 orders of magnitude. -
This shifts the optimum towards - Flat militia using a network of cruise micro-missiles.
(See Cruise micro-missile network )

Experience of Ukraine:

In Ukraine itself, already in the 21st century, there was an experience of using assets - trade unions.
True, in the non-manufacturing sector. -
" Ukrprofzdravnitsa ", in whose economic jurisdiction were sanatorium-resort complexes, as an economic entity showed good financial performance even without the involvement of "professionals" - "effective managers " - innovators .
If trade unions were oriented not to benefits for owners, but to maximizing their earnings, their competitiveness would be higher than that of traditional commercial structures precisely due to zero profitability during a period of very high average profit rates.
However, the criminal and corruption courts of the "Russian World" of Ukraine raided trade union property.

Market "wages" (Hypothesis):

This is another option for reducing social polarization.
Actually, there are many options.
Finding the best option is one of the purposes of the Deliberative Network.

On the example of re-privatization in Russia: What to do:

Criteria are being developed to determine the illegality of state privatization. property in the 1990s.
The assets of all persons associated with the Putinists are being arrested , as well as those illegally privatized in the 1990s are being gradually arrested
An inclusive property right is being developed, as well as an inclusive institution and relevant legislation of the Management Companies.
Mechanisms for the collective management of property are being developed.

Assets are transferred in limited ownership to people working in these enterprises.
- Not to "Labour Collectives", but to the property - physical. persons.

Employees themselves manage their property not directly, but by hiring inclusive Management Companies.
Inclusion means:
1. "Management company" can be anyone, even one person.
2. Management companies have minimal rights, in fact they have no rights, in particular, they can be easily replaced by employees.
Mechanisms are being developed for prompt approval of their decisions by a large number of people.
The activities of the Management Companies are 100% transparent and open.

Employees are interested in hiring professional managers who will provide them with the maximum income = "salary".
Employees better than third-party investors understand the features of their production.
Ideally, only managers will remain employees, and then only from below.

"Salaries" are actually profits.
The market nature of "wages" is the usual market nature of profits.

Factors of the size of "salaries" of workers:
1. Production work;
2. "Working as an investor."

Together with the liberalization of property, the profitability factor as such will become close to zero.
Thus, even complex rules and mechanisms for the transfer of workers between enterprises will not be needed.

 

"Popular" exposition of Factor s :

Extremely simplified, distorted, but understandable:
99 independent "workers" (developers) come out against the 1st - the exclusive "relative" "owner" of intelligent technological equipment.
Trade unions at the beginning of the 20th century were banned in the United States, so that the "owners" would not unite either.
They will not be able to buy the state for their protection either, so there will be no taxes, no state.
And they won’t have anything to buy personal terrorists either, since inclusive competition will bring down profits.

In fact, the workers will cherish and nurture the irreplaceable "owners" who remain in certain transport sectors, since they really "feed" them.

 

Flat military-industrial complex (Military-industrial complex):

The French workers can and do endure.
Their standard of living is already high.
Envy in particular - to the "capitalists" - is a sin.
Another thing is that social polarization is the main existential threat to the existence of mankind.
Flat political economy is not so important. She is only a means.

Ukraine is the hope for the survival of mankind:

However, Flat Counter-Propaganda and Flat Military-Industrial Complex are vital, and, above all, in Ukraine.
( Flat Counter-Propaganda # One must hope for oneself.docx )
The flat military-industrial complex will not make much competition to the state military-industrial complex of Ukraine.
- State. The military-industrial complex is focused mainly on the purchase of ready-made weapons.
Self-made, for example, drones , since the beginning of the war have been designed and manufactured - almost exclusively - by enthusiastic activists.
A unique situation has developed around Ukraine now, when the anti-liberal rulers of the United States may prefer the existence of real liberalism in Ukraine to economic losses due to Russian aggression in Ukraine.

See also: My disappointments in science and Deliberat network.docx

 

" Konnor "

36634