Axioms:

1. Every entity seeks to sustain its existence.
2. The very existence of an entity is the natural evidence that it seeks to sustain its existence.
3. The essence of every entity (its a priori or “first” morality) is existence (survival). (As a natural consequence of Axioms 1 and 2)
4. The a priori morality is the “initial” vector that determines the direction for the modes of morality to be built upon it.
5. An individual’s morality is the set of values they construct to survive.
6. A society’s morality is the set of values it constructs to survive.
7. A supersystem, composed of the parts of a subsystem, is greater than the subsystem because it also encompasses the relationships between the parts.
8. The moral domain of society > The moral domain of the individual. (As a natural consequence of Axiom 7)
9. Everything is in motion. Nothing is static.
10. The exact same conditions never repeat in the future.

Note: I use the distinction of subsystem-supersystem rather than individual-society because I believe the same patterns are replicated across any system: e.g., individual-society, cell-tissue, atom-molecule…

Propositions:

1. The subsystem (individual) can only survive if it is encompassed by the supersystem (society).
   Explanation: Every subsystem that establishes a supersystem does so out of necessity. Establishing a supersystem is extremely costly; for this reason, it can only be founded when there is an existential threat. The moment the supersystem is established, the subsystem becomes dependent on its resource flow. Separation from the supersystem means death for the subsystem. This is a biological, evolutionary, and systemic necessity.
2. A state in which the subsystem’s morality is encompassed by the supersystem’s morality is referred to by the subsystem as “being moral” or “being good.”
   Explanation: Since the supersystem emerges as a mode of survival for the subsystem, it functions as a social contract. Those who abide by the contract continue their symbiosis with the supersystem; those who do not are eliminated from the contract’s domain.
3. Perception always belongs to the past.
   Explanation: “An event occurs > The event is analyzed > An output regarding the event is generated.” In the time that elapses between the event’s occurrence and the generation of the output, the event being analyzed changes, as it too has a vector of motion (see Axiom 9). Therefore, the output is always an output about the past.
4. The eliminated subsystem loses its existence/life.
   Explanation: The subsystem created the supersystem because it could not survive without it. The very existence of the supersystem is natural proof of this. Therefore, separation from the supersystem is death for the subsystem.
5. As the boundaries of the supersystem expand, it encompasses more subsystems (thereby accepting a greater number of moralities).
   Explanation: The expansion of the supersystem primarily occurs through population growth. Subsystems added to the system generate a rate of supersystem growth that is faster than the sum of the growth rates of the individual parts. This is due to the context created by the network of relationships.
6. The growing supersystem mobilizes the subsystems.
   Explanation: Everything has a vector of motion (see Axiom 9). A subsystem that might initially collide with the supersystem’s boundaries and remain static due to the narrowness of the domain will, as the supersystem grows, collide with these boundaries less frequently during its motion.
7. When the supersystem expands, the mobilized subsystem “absolutely” abandons its former position.
   Explanation: Over time, the subsystem’s vector of motion changes its position relative to the supersystem.
8. The boundary of the supersystem is unpredictable to the subsystem, both for the present and the future. Therefore, what is called the supersystem’s boundary is always a boundary that belongs to the past.
   Explanation: Perception lags behind reality (Proposition 3).

Conclusion:

If we define:

Subsystem = The Individual’s Moral Domain (IMD)

Supersystem = The Society’s Moral Domain (SMD)

Then, if the SMD/IMD ratio increases, immorality increases. This is because the moral boundary that is mentally possessed (perceived) belongs to the past, and this boundary is an estimated boundary of the societal moral domain (eSMD = estimated SMD). The boundary within which the individual can actually live/survive lies beyond this estimated boundary. Therefore, Immorality is the domain outside of the eSMD.

Mathematical Formulation:

Given that eSMD⊂SMD, it follows that the totality of immorality is the set difference:

SMD∖eSMD={x∣x∈SMD and x∈/eSMD}

Those who step on the boundary of the eSMD, its “red lines,” are “warned”: either return inside or go outside and be among the “immoral.” At this point, the potential immoral actor (the black-filled sphere) who is stepping on the red line has a chance to make a decision. This is because the system has grown large enough to create other eSMD sets externally. By leaving the eSMD set they were born into, they can continue their “moral” life within another eSMD set. Of course, the precondition for this is the existence of other eSMD sets that is, a gap between the total SMD and the perceived eSMD.

Since moral domains act based on population and resources (as established in Proposition 5), I will use the bacterial growth curve as a basis to explain them.

The first phase, denoted by A in the diagram, is called the “Lag Phase.” This is the period where the necessary materials for growth are gathered, but growth itself has not yet commenced. It is analogous to the “foundation” phase in any other system.

The phase denoted by B is called the “Logarithmic Phase” (or Log Phase). The system, now prepared for growth, expands logarithmically. This is analogous to the “rise” or “expansion” phase in any system.

The phase denoted by C is called the “Stationary Phase.” The system has reached its natural limit. The first half of this phase resembles the Log Phase, while its second half anticipates Phase D, which we will discuss next. This phase is analogous to the “stagnation” or “plateau” phase in any system.

The phase denoted by D is called the “Death Phase.” After colliding with the natural limit it reached, the system begins to decline. The extent of this decline depends on the system’s resilience. It is analogous to the “collapse” phase in any system. The level to which the “Death Phase” descends can be either above or below the initial Phase A. However, it cannot be at the exact same point as the initial Phase A. This is because the same Phase A would require the exact same conditions, and the exact same conditions never repeat (Axiom 10).

Once a new Phase A is formed, the system re-enters the same cycle, progressing through Phases B, C, and D, and creating another brand new Phase A. This cycle continues in this manner. The only thing that changes in the cycle is the position of the “revolution points.” These revolution points — the transition from A to B, B to C, C to D, and D to a new A — can shift forward or backward on the time axis depending on the underlying conditions (infrastructure). These shifts along the time axis affect the scale and character of the wave.

Political Consequences

Before beginning this section, I would like to recall the fundamental rules:

1)Anyone who goes outside the SMD (Societal Moral Domain) dies (Proposition 1).

2)Anyone who goes outside the eSMD (estimated Societal Moral Domain) is considered “immoral” (Proposition 2).

3)Since the eSMD is a delayed perception of the SMD, it corresponds on the graph to the state of the SMD from 1 unit in the past (to its left).

On a flat, horizontal line, the eSMD and SMD become equal. This is because every point on the line — its past and its future — is the same. Therefore, a prediction made in the past does not change for the future.

If the slope of the line is positive, the eSMD will correspond to the SMD’s position on the graph at the previous time unit, and thus SMD > eSMD will be the case (as you saw in the set notation in the Conclusion section).

If the slope of the line is negative, the SMD is progressively shrinking. Therefore, its previous state (the eSMD) is always larger than its current state. For this reason, it will be that eSMD > SMD.

In short, there are three important scenarios:

A horizontal line with no slope (eSMD = SMD)

A positive slope (SMD > eSMD)

A negative slope (eSMD > SMD)

Warning: The remainder of this text can only be understood if the preceding rules are fully grasped. Therefore, I recommend re-reading any part that is not perfectly clear.

In Phase A, the SMD/IMD ratio is constant, and for this reason, the eSMD is the same size as the SMD set. If the ratio remains constant, the prediction about the past — which is the definition of eSMD — also holds true for the present. Consequently, since exiting the eSMD would also mean exiting the SMD, the “immoral” (those outside the eSMD) die. This phase, where being immoral is equivalent to death, I will call the “Communism Phase.”

In Phase B, because the SMD expands faster than the eSMD, the “immoral” who live in the gap between the two domains can continue to live. This is because the SMD is now wide enough to contain other eSMD sets within it. As the IMD (Individual Moral Domain) moves within the SMD with its vector of motion, it can transition between different eSMD sets, and these transitions do not kill it. In this phase, the “immoral” (according to observers in the eSMD set where they began their life) can survive. I will call this the phase of the money economy, i.e., the “Capitalism Phase.”

In Phase C, the growth rate of the SMD slows as it approaches the system’s limit. In this phase, the eSMD set gets closer to the SMD set. In the second half of this phase, as the SMD begins to decline, it will at some point shrink back to the same size as the eSMD. This phase, where the eSMD is still smaller than the SMD but the gap between them is closing and eventually equalizes, I will call the “Mixed Phase / Keynesian-like Phase.”

In Phase D, the SMD and eSMD, having become equal in size, invert their relationship. The SMD continues to shrink, while the eSMD follows it from the past. Since the moral domain of the past is now larger than that of the present, the roles are reversed. Now, even the “moral” die. (I remind you of the rule again: There is no life outside the SMD (Proposition 1). Being “moral,” however, means being inside the eSMD.) I will call this phase the “Socialism Phase.”

The horizontal phase that comes after Phase D, where the line again becomes parallel to the x-axis — that is, the new Phase A — I will call the “New Communism Phase.”

The Morality Curve from Marx’s Perspective

Although I do not believe Marx thought in this exact way (as this idea is inconsistent with materialist dialectic(Marx, 1990)), I think he may have explained the model this way to help bring about the socialist revolution. Of course, I cannot prove this. The problem here, in my opinion, is that this model’s decline phase is a mirror image of its rise phase. It almost resembles a normal distribution histogram. It’s as if there is a construct of socialism built on the principle of reversing time — as if to say, “Socialism is such a powerful antithesis that it can even turn back time.”

However, the exact same conditions will not occur again. Consequently, the death phase will not flatten out at the same SMD/IMD ratio. The only thing that can happen is a graph that flattens out at a different SMD/IMD level after socialism. This means the new communism must contain the consequences of a different SMD/IMD level. Furthermore, let’s say socialism did reverse time and brought everything back to the identical initial position of communism. What then? The next stage would again be capitalism. The cycle would continue. In short, this claim involves both reversing time and then stopping that reversed time at a specific point.

Before finishing this section, I want to answer a potential criticism. Of course, I am aware that Marx proposed an idea of communism that is technologically and civilizationally advanced(Marx, 1990). But to be technologically and civilizationally advanced means that the entire infrastructure has changed. It means a different morality multiplier. Therefore, the system imagined to emerge as a result of this cannot be communism — at least, not as one might imagine it. Meaning, the system can either be another, technologically and civilizationally advanced system, or it can be a primitive communism as depicted in the graph above. It cannot be both at the same time, because the same system cannot emerge as a result of different infrastructures.

If you have the objection, “But perhaps it would be a better communism,” then please see the next section.

What Happened in the World?

In the real world, we experienced communism (A), capitalism (B), the mixed/Keynesian model ©, the credit period created by the abolition of the gold standard for the dollar (1971) which represents (D), and the subsequent neoliberal economic era (the new A). There is no problem with parts A, B, and C; they are in line with Marx. The problem appears to be in part D and the new A. The system seems more resilient than Marx imagined. For this reason, the revolution points at the transitions into D and the new A have been able to move along the time axis. All revolution points — that is, the transition points to the next phase — are mobile. But in my opinion, the most important transition in this pattern is the one from D to the new A system, because this transition is directly proportional to the dying system’s resistance to extinction.

The Ultimate Claim

In my opinion, Marx was not mistaken about how the cycle works. There were, just as he imagined, patterns that followed one another. Where he was mistaken, I believe, was in the content of the phases. In other words, he was correct in his prophecy that A-B-C-D-New A periods would occur, but he could not predict the content of these periods because he could not know what infrastructures the future would create.

Phase D, the credit period, carries the patterns of a socialist revolution. What does the credit period take as its basis? A system where the entire society is moral. A system where everyone honors their debts, where it is believed that no one “can” cheat another. Only if these preconditions are met can credit enter into use instead of money. This always happens in the collapse phase. Because the “Collapse Phase (D)” is the period where the eSMD becomes larger than the SMD. In this situation, everyone becomes “moral.” Naturally, credit can be extended. For this reason, the credit period initiated in 1971 is like an analogue of socialism that emerged from a different infrastructure. Its biggest difference is that it is the result of a different SMD/IMD ratio. No cycle repeats itself identically. Consequently, socialism will never emerge in the same way either. What I am looking for in this text is to see if, after simplifying by the SMD/IMD multiplier, the remaining base systems form a motif.

I am taking one more step. As a result of these logical deductions, I see neoliberalism as an analogue of communism that has emerged at a different SMD/IMD ratio. It is a system composed of communes, aiming for decentralization, where an invisible hand (call it the market or collective consciousness) determines the system. Again, the biggest difference is that the SMD/IMD ratio is different from that of primitive communism. A higher ratio protects the individual from death during their movement within the total moral domain with their own morality. Because the SMD/IMD ratio begins to draw a horizontal line without shrinking too much, the domain for moral mobilization is preserved. This provides the potential for the collective mind to evolve toward the goal of profit-making. The other side (communism), however, has a lower SMD/IMD ratio, so the IMD cannot move within the SMD. Consequently, the survival of the individual becomes equal to the survival of the society, and the goal is positioned as protecting the society’s welfare.

Ultimately, in both systems, the primary goal is the individual’s own welfare. In communism, the individual’s welfare is equal to the society’s welfare, so the individual protecting themself becomes an act of protecting society. In neoliberalism, however, this equality is not possible. Consequently, in both systems, the individual thinks only of themself, but the results are completely different. In one, if the individual disregards the society’s welfare, they die from “immorality.” In the other, nothing happens; they just take their morality and live in another eSMD set. For this reason, these two concepts, which are fundamentally the same, appear to be polar opposites.

If we simplify these systems by the SMD/IMD ratio, we arrive at the same base. The motifs can only become apparent in this way. I am of the opinion that the fundamental bases of the motifs should be thought of as follows:

Communism = Form of a Decentralized Credit Economy System (eSMD = SMD)

Capitalism = Form of a Centralized Money Economy System (SMD > eSMD)

Socialism = Form of a Centralized Credit Economy System (eSMD > SMD)

The system I am trying to describe here can also be read as the money-credit economy cycle of D. Graeber, multiplied by the morality multiplier (SMD/IMD). (Graeber, 2012)

If we consider the economic system cycle as a repeating loop: Decentralized Credit Economy System > Centralized Money Economy System > Centralized Credit Economy System > and back to a Decentralized Credit Economy System, then:

The Nixon crisis or socialism = Centralized Credit Economy System (constant) x SMD/IMD (variable over time)

The dream of communism or neoliberalism = Decentralized Credit Economy System (constant) x SMD/IMD (variable over time)

In short, what Marx called a civilizationally and technologically advanced communism actually turned out to be neoliberalism.

When we evaluate it this way, both Marx is proven right about the sequence of the cycles, and Fukuyama(Fukuyama, 2006) is proven right about the idea of neoliberalism being the end of history. Because, just as Fukuyama(Fukuyama, 2006) said, the morality curve began to draw a flat line, and an era came to a close. The end of the known world/history.

A Prophecy for the Future

If the system is to continue its cyclical mechanics — that is, if humanity is not annihilated but manages to continue as a species — it is likely that with the end of neoliberalism, as we transition into a “new capitalism,” we will see even larger SMD/IMD ratios. This could create a trend toward the elimination of individual morality. Perhaps the post-truth era is the first step of this new period. As another consequence of the same logical system, the reduction of individual morality — the will to survive — to an insignificant level could be achieved by giving the individual “a form of immortality.” Perhaps a transhumanist project, or perhaps just false and convincing propaganda of immortality made possible by the advantage of a destroyed reality. Or maybe a mixture. In any case, the first condition will be the transfer of humanity’s sovereignty over knowledge to artificial intelligence. In this way, AI can provide a more selective elimination of information, and one that is more in favor of humans than the previous collective consciousness/immune system, which was “nature.” It’s somewhat reminiscent of the robot R. Daneel Olivaw from Asimov’s Foundation series(Asimov, 2004). For the AI’s sovereignty over knowledge to function properly, the fundamental need is the complete destruction of reality. The biggest obstacle to completely destroying reality is death. Fake news can only remain vulnerable in the face of an existential threat. The system can absorb and soften everything else, incorporating it into itself. Therefore, when this sovereignty is ready to be transferred, we must either be saved from death or be manipulated into believing we have been. Since true immortality is unlikely, I expect that an extended lifespan will be presented as immortality, and when that limit is reached, the system will collapse. The first limit will be the population pressure created by the increased lifespan. If that stage can be overcome, the limit will then be the boundary of the new lifespan itself.

Final Clarification

I want to end this text in a way that avoids potential misunderstanding. At this level, biologizing systems appears quite “right-wing.” However, I believe what has actually happened is that right-wing politics has biologized its own political ideas. They didn’t look at nature and say, “politics should be like this”; they looked at politics and said, “nature probably works like this too.” The most likely reason for this is that these ideas were proposed in an era before modern biology existed and have not been sufficiently updated. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the nature-politics pairing should not be considered “right-wing.” It is quite clear that the a priori purpose of humans and all entities is to continue their existence. However, while continuing one’s existence is an ideal, how this can be done — the technique — is a matter of culture. Likewise, culture is itself a sophisticated manifestation of a layered instinct for survival. While I see this two-way system as a single whole, we can use the nature-culture distinction as a heuristic device to make this evaluation. Seeing the nature-culture duality as a single entity and calling this entity “nature” does not stem from my holding a right-wing view, but from my agreement with Spinoza(Spinoza, 1996).

References

Asimov, I. (2004). Foundation. Bantam Books.

Fukuyama, F. (2006). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.

Graeber, D. (2012). DEBT: THE FIRST 5,000 YEARS (First Melville House pbk). MELVILLE HOUSE.

Marx, K. (1990). Capital: A critique of political economy. Penguin books.

Spinoza, B. de. (1996). Ethics (New edition). Penguin Books.