Позитивные изменения. Тематический выпуск «Экономика будущего» (2023). Positive changes. Special issue «The economy of the future» (2023)
Шрифт:
The article presents a vision of the Economy of the Future by Alexey Ryzhkov, social investor, founder of Seven Suns Development Group and the Positive Changes Factory.
Alexey Ryzhkov
Social investor, founder of Seven Suns Development Group and the Positive Changes Factory
In his previous works [2] , A. Ryzhkov highlights that the contemporary society is currently facing a crisis, undergoing a transition from the established way of life, in which financial prosperity is understood as the sole measure of success and the essence of life, to the intangible realm, where humans themselves are the focal point of life, as living entities with their natural habitat and respective qualities. This will certainly transform all areas of human life, including the economy.
2
Ryzhkov, A. (2022). Russia – the Country of Positive Changes. Positive Changes Journal, 2(2), 5–13.Ryzhkov, A. (2022). Cities of the Future in Russia. Positive Changes Journal. Special Issue on the Cities of the Future, 4–9
Throughout their history, the humans have always been striving to develop the theory of a fair economy and to implement it in practice. All these numerous attempts generally fall into the following two categories:
• individualistic
and
• collectivist
The former is best described by the concept “everyone is responsible for their own life,” which received different wordings in different epochs: “survival of the fittest,” “nothing personal, just business,” and even “homo homini lupus est.”
The latter prioritizes the concept of human collaboration, which has also been demonstrated through various models of social organization, from tribal alliances to more recent endeavors such as the ambitious global socialist project.
The economy, being a reflection of the prevailing worldview, naturally aligned itself with the broader division into two dominant lifestyles. The individualistic concept persistently advocated for the economic model of a free market and entrepreneurship, which exerted its influence on every individual within society. Conversely, the collectivist ideology led to an economic model characterized by centralized regulation, management, and distribution of economic benefits, operating from the top-down.
Naturally, both approaches had their strengths and weaknesses; both were also inherently biased. The individualistic worldview, while granting more autonomy and maturity to individuals within the society, often did so at the expense of ethical considerations. This created extreme levels of egocentrism among the privileged few atop the social pyramid, perpetuating vertical hierarchies and exploitation of the weaker social groups by the stronger ones, sometimes as much as seizing control over the entire society. On the other hand, the collectivist ideology consistently upheld high moral values and proudly emphasized the priority of altruistic beliefs over financial gains. However, it also resulted in diminished individual autonomy and greater dependence in thought and action, suppressing the objective impetus for social progress by discouraging any individual development beyond the average level. This inevitably led to a standardized approach to personal growth, homogenization of individuals, societal stagnation, and ultimately, self-destruction of the society.
The confrontation between the two ideas and approaches has always been more or less fierce. Sometimes they coexisted without a visible conflict, but most of the time they were conflicting one way or another. The reason is they are actually two sides of the same coin – the human nature, split into two parts that form two opposing poles of the worldview, with all their strengths and weaknesses, which were reproduced again and again on the global scale throughout the departing historical period. As the society progressed, these opposing positions became more and more pronounced, crystallized as the positive and negative poles of a magnet, and today we are witnessing their ultimate battle.
If we look carefully, throughout history the West has always adhered to the first position; the second position was held by Russia and certain parts of the East and South. In most cases, the centers of power within society remained relatively unchanged, despite the presence of followers for both models in various regions. Although isolated parts of the global society attempted to adopt alternative perspectives repeatedly over the course of history, the deeply entrenched stereotypes associated with their respective worldviews endured. Consequently, these attempts often proved temporary, ultimately reversing to the established order. Nonetheless, they served as valuable lessons, providing insights and knowledge that proved beneficial in many ways.
How can we solve this conflict? Is there a way to reconcile the parties, or does one opponent have to beat the other? Who is right? What model is better? To answer these questions properly, we must first understand the logic of life in general and the logic of its development process.
To this end, it is only fair to remember the general matrix of life applicable to the development of the humans and the society, which contains a sequence of levels that must be mastered step by step, from the bottom up (see Table 1).
At each level, the individual and the society achieve a greater degree of development, improving quality of life in all aspects. These levels are hierarchical in relation to one another – each higher encompasses and defines all lower levels. During the historical period known to us, the humankind has consistently climbed up the lower four levels of life, passing the corresponding events, achieving the corresponding accomplishments, surviving the corresponding crises, which are especially acute in the transitions between the levels. The economy developed accordingly. Of course, the society is heterogeneous, and its different parts may be standing at different development levels, so the measurement should be made by the highest level reached by a significant part of the society. The global society is currently mastering the 4th level of life, and will soon have to transition to the 5th level. This is the current stage of life and the corresponding challenge of the times for all people and the society.
Table 1. The general matrix of life
There is a fundamental difference between the lower four and upper four levels of life. It is the difference between the tangible and intangible, which means a radical transformation of the pivot point around which all of life is built. In the lower half of the matrix (the first four levels), everything is built around financial prosperity; that is, the humans are busy setting up their lives, gathering things around them. The upper half (the top four levels), however, is built around the intangible component of life, the humans’ non-physical nature. Here we must note that during the entire passing epoch, the human society’s attention and efforts were focused not on the humans themselves, but beyond them. Respectively, we know nothing about the humans’ intangible nature, about who they are in reality.
The period we are living in today is a transition from the lower half to the upper half of the matrix of life – from level 4 to level 5 and above. All the events, including the crises, that are happening in every person’s life as much as in the life of the entire society, shall be viewed through the prism and logic of this transition.
The transition from tangible to intangible, as in fact any significant transition, cannot happen overnight; it takes creating a projection of the current level and moving it to the next one, that is, a representation of the new level through elements of the old. This is to some extent a virtual construct, representing the nonexistent through the existing materials. It is always a distortion of reality, a kind of “fake simile” (largely idealistic) of what is coming. In this case, it is an important stage of transition, and generally, it should certainly be considered as something positive and constructive, compared to the existing level. But the transition to the level that is greater evolution-wise will only occur once this idealistic “fake simile” of the reality is torn down. The above can be considered a model for both individual and collective transition.