Nowadays, the "everything for the people, nothing by the people" motto of Enlightened Absolutism seems like a bad joke. However, if we take into account the historical web surrounding that one thread, we must admit it was an advancement that resulted in a slightly more enlightened society. This can mislead us to think that if absolutist monarchy had not make such a concession, maybe that very order would have endured for a much longer time, or maybe the shift towards liberalism would not have been so gradual. But could monarchy even afford to not make such a concession? Of course not: cornered by dangerous new ideas, every power establishment ends up trying to adapt to them superficially, maintaining the essentials but conceding some changes, although later the plan backfires. That is precisely how we see enlightened despotism now and we can only conclude that people in the future will laugh at our concept of liberalism and democracy too.
From primitive societies to capitalism, all have tried their best in their physical context, not accounting for ups and downs. That seems to be the human propensity, as long as the environment allows it. In other words, it is not just that we 'are' better people or more civilized beings: the technical conditions have allowed us to be so. Were we left tomorrow without our essential facilities (tap water, electricity and transport for goods and people), faster than seems possible the inhabitants of the developed nations would take up a new paradigm: chaos.
So yes, capitalist economy is an advancement, including its current characterization that owes more to the monetary reforms on the mid-20th Century than to its original ideas. The fact is the life of an average human being has improved considerably throughout the last two hundred years thanks to advancements in mechanization, medicine and methodical education; it is technical know-how, to a certain point carried out by the opening of the market, what has improved our lives. But monetarism will only take us up to a certain point.
Sure enough, we must not forget that while life expectancy in the Americas, Oceania and Europe (and even Asia to a certain extent) has raised considerably, in Africa the situation is still pretty deplorable: if we take a look at the current data we will see that we double the live expectancy of many South African nations.
Why does this happen? Why is there still classic slavery in a handful of countries, inordinate exploitation in many others and wage slavery in developed or developing countries? Aside from the obvious direct causes, this happens because the current political and economic system, once the prototype of the maximum freedom possible for humanity, is now obsolete. These things and worse were already happenning but during the last half-century society has sensitized to them and has imagined new possibilities. However, the system has not caught up: clean and practically inexhaustible energy sources, more practical methods of agriculture, the almost total automation of the manufacturing sector (and of the services), more energy-efficient and faster means of transport for goods and people, instantaneous global communication and, in the near future, the dawn of cybernation and nanotechnology.
The current political-economic model is already attempting to reconcile with it all but it will eventually fail. If we take these advancements to their logical extreme, it won't even be able to justify its very basis: the human employment in the production process, and therefore the concept of product 'value' mostly defined by the human time and work required in manufacturing. The mechanization of the industrial age substituted twenty men for just one driving a machine and the automation of the computer age is already substituting employees of all sectors for a few technicians -and no, those jobs will not come back.
Actually, nor should they come back -if the eight-hour day was achieved with mechanization, what will then be achieved with automation? Even with the over-exploitative and over-productive tendencies of the free market, the difference would be astronomical. And if the system adapted to the new technology instead of the other way around, the concept of employment and wages as the basis for economy would end up being obsolete. In any of its many manifestations, the monetary system would not be able to justify the necessity of paying for food and energy if its ability to make them in abundance were such that their acquisition was considered a civil right. This way, scarcity would decrease more and more alongside human time and work, until product value dangerously approximates zero.
Hence, changes will happen. Either a painful revolution breaks out or capitalism will gradually adapt to these technical and social pressures until whatever is left is unrecognizable. There will be a time when this junction will be crucial but for the purpose of this text the difference is insignificant, as the current system will collapse under its own weight the same way that one day it brought about a new prototype of human freedom. It is also possible that cultural change will not be so fast as to outmatch the energy problem or the tensions among nuclear-armed nations, but that alternative does not need further explanation.
Having said that, how can the ensuing culture avoid the cycle of stagnation and revolution? Modern politics does this in some ways, but how do you create a society that evolves embracing the little mutations, instead of standing up to them to eventually succumb to the next logical step? How do you make it so that the very basis of society, with its culture and economy, stops the human trend of shifting the socio-economic model by dominating the ruling system? In short, how can we avoid an established system and arrive at an emergent system?
The point is to organize these new technics in a way that those pioneers in the forefront of social evolution cannot (and don't want to) be leaders, but doers. Instead of leading the system in an overarching way, they do stuff to improve specific characteristics within it. Therefore, to avoid the stagnation of ideas at a socioeconomic level there simply cannot be a rigidly defined system of government; each and every individual governs or leads society by means of their input in technics and culture.
From technological and medical contributions to artistic and recreational ones, society arranges itself by 'the little things', as opposed to most modern theories of power. But at the same time, thanks to electronic communication and fast transportation, there is a possibility to connect society as a whole: even the product of the most insignificant participation is available to everyone in a decentralized but totally united network of computer systems and transport, instead of being left limited to a region or expand with exasperating and sometimes lethal sluggishness, as it happened in primitive societies and is still proposed in politics by certain kinds of anarchism and in social movements by off-grid ecovillages.
That is how you create an emergent society. Following the natural course of technology, communication among human beings is eased until a global interconnection is achieved, with which every individual knows perfectly that their contribution will help them, their family and everyone else and that the input of the rest of the world will follow the same path, uninterrupted by any government that would be unnecessary in this historical context. Not having an overarching power, in this system the only constant is change. The cycle of stagnation and revolution and the struggle between new and old ideas simply ceases to be applicable and is naturally replaced by another paradigm: social evolution in an emergent society.
(Leer la versión original: La evolución social en una sociedad emergente)
