From Marx to Balaji: ‘Network States’ as many ‘Dominant Classes’ (and no one loses)
How can we integrate Karl Marx’s concept of the “dominant class” with Balaji Srinivasan’s concept of “network states”? Can every class become dominant in Balaji’s concept? Can this help achieve a situation where there are no losers (oppressed minorities) and eliminate the need for “class struggle”? Is there a demand in society for new unions, decentralized international unions 2.0? Are unions a transitional form to the creation of metastates? Could oppositionally-minded Russians and Belarusians in exile start by forming their own “union”?
Back to Basics: Rethinking the “Dominant Class”
In Karl Marx’s theory, the “dominant class” (or “ruling class”) refers to the social class that possesses political, economic, and ideological power in society. For Marx, the main driver of historical development is the struggle between classes, with the dominant class controlling the means of production (land, factories, capital, etc.), allowing it to exploit the working class (proletariat). Depending on the stage of economic development of society, the dominant class can change. For example, in feudal society, the dominant class was the feudal lords who owned the land, while in capitalist society, this role is played by the bourgeoisie or capitalists who own the means of production. Marx believed that the dominant class not only exploits the working class but also forms the dominant ideology in society to maintain its position and justify the existing socio-economic order. This is achieved through various cultural and educational institutions that disseminate ideas and values beneficial to the dominant class.
Karl Marx expressed the idea that the working classes of different countries have more in common with each other than the working class and the bourgeoisie within one country. This concept is based on the notion that all workers, regardless of their nationality, are exploited by the capitalist system, which forces them to sell their labor for survival. The exploitation and oppression faced by workers in different countries make their struggle common. Marx and Engels declare: “Workers of all countries, unite!”. This call emphasizes the idea that it is more important for workers around the world to unite in their fight against capitalist oppression than to be divided on a national or any other basis. Marx believed that class struggle is universal and that the working classes of different countries face a common enemy — the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system as a whole.
The Working Class — The Useless Class?
The term “useless class” was introduced by historian and writer Yuval Noah Harari in his works, especially in the book “Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow”. Harari uses this term to describe a potential future where automation, artificial intelligence, and other technological innovations could lead to a significant portion of the population losing their economic significance and becoming “useless” from the perspective of the market economy. According to Harari, technological developments could create a society where machines perform most of the work previously requiring human participation. This could lead to mass unemployment and a situation where a large part of humanity cannot find a use for their skills and talents, thus becoming the “useless class”.
Harari raises questions about social stability, identity, and the meaning of human life in such a context. He suggests that this will necessitate the creation of new forms of social organization and economic systems that could provide a decent existence for all, regardless of their “usefulness” to the economy. The future may require rethinking concepts of work, value, and participation in society, as well as developing new approaches to the distribution of resources and opportunities in a world where traditional roles and professions may become obsolete.
In such a world, according to Harari, a universal basic income (UBI) could become one of the solutions for ensuring economic security and stability, offering all citizens a fixed amount of money regardless of their work status. Harari considers UBI not only as a way to meet people’s basic needs but also as a tool for supporting social stability and preventing the social divide that may arise from increasing inequality and the loss of traditional jobs. He also suggests that UBI could encourage greater creative and innovative activity, as people would have the freedom to engage in what they find important and meaningful without worrying about earning a living in the traditional way. However, Harari also raises questions about how UBI would be financed and what the long-term social and economic consequences of its implementation might be, including potential changes in the relationship between citizens and the state, as well as the impact on work motivation and personal development.
Integrating Marx’s concept of the “dominant class” with the idea of “network states” by Balaji
This requires a creative approach to rethinking the foundations of social organization and economy. In Marx’s works, the “dominant class” is defined as the one that owns the means of production and thus exploits the working class. Balaji Srinivasan presents the concept of “network states” as a new form of social and political organization based on digital technologies and network communities, implying the possibility of decentralizing power and economic activity. To synthesize these two concepts, the following ideas can be proposed:
- Universal Basic Income: Implementing a system of universal basic income, supported by the digital economy and automation, could provide economic security for all, regardless of their role in the production process. This would reduce social tension and decrease dependency on exploitative labor relations.
- Decentralization of Means of Production: In a network state, technologies such as blockchain and smart contracts could facilitate the decentralization of ownership and management of the means of production. This could allow every member of society to have a share of ownership and control over resources and processes, thereby reducing inequality and the need for class struggle.
- Digital Democracy and Participation: Network states could implement digital platforms for citizen participation in decision-making at all levels of governance, thereby ensuring broader representation and the ability of every class to influence public life. This could contribute to a more equitable distribution of power.
- Sharing Economy, based on collaborative consumption and production: Transitioning to models of collaborative consumption and production, supported by digital platforms, could contribute to a more even distribution of resources and benefits from economic activity.
- Education and Continuous Learning: The development of digital educational platforms and continuous learning programs will help people adapt to changing economic conditions and technological innovations, increasing their chances of successful integration into the new economy.
By combining these elements, we can strive to create a society where power and economic resources are more evenly distributed, and the need for class struggle is reduced by creating conditions for economic justice and social equality. In fact, in the concept of “network states” — each class, regardless of its size and location, can unite into a metastate. And in it, there will be no “losing minority” and violence with oppression. Moreover, nothing prevents, on the contrary, motivates a person, depending on his values, activities and interests, as well as the availability of energy for social activity — to become a “citizen” of any number of metastates.
