Capital vs. Labor: a theory of society

Main article: Community

The ratings based society should start with a theory for how society works in the first place. One view is that the key to societal function, particularly in a democracy, lies in the relationship between the owning class and the working class. This view is broadly Marxian although it is not necessarily Marxist. It is the reason why we have gravitated toward a moneyless society, rules for income (or resource) distribution, and an emphasis on need as well as rated merit in distributing economic resources.

Although modern societies have come a long way since Marx wrote, they still bear out his essential insight: capital and labor are inherently in conflict. Society has little choice in this. Labor and capital are both required for society to function. And generally those who control the capital are not the ones who do the work, although as we will see, it is precisely on this point where change may be possible.

Furthermore, modern societies bear out the consequences of this relationship. The ones that treat their working classes the worst score lower in overall freedom and economic metrics such as HDI. The ones that treat them the best score the highest. Turns out it pays to treat workers well.

The advanced western democracies are witnessing what happens when we turn away from treating the working class fairly. As might be expected, they tend to get angry. The MAGA movement, whose singular political accomplishment has been to galvanize the working class, is a direct consequence of that anger. So much so that it has broken with Republican orthodoxy on immigration and free trade, while elevating a whole host of cultural issues far beyond where mainstream conservatives were comfortable. The populist realignment in the Republican party can be seen as a reaction to neoliberal views on markets and labor.

Our ratings system anticipates and encourages a correct relationship between capital and labor by subjecting these facets of society, like everything else, to ratings and votes. We reject the notion of an invisible “market”, one that limits our actions, as the product of a disinformation campaign waged by interested parties. People create the rules by which society functions, period. Therefore the ratings system, which is the mechanism of rule creation (and evaluation), is the ultimate source of authority in a ratings-based society.

This is not to say that mechanisms to limit popular will shouldn’t be put in place. The people of a community should adhere to Rawlsian concepts of basic liberties and hold these as inviolate, no matter what their momentary passions may dictate. They should also build hysteresis into their governance to avoid sudden drastic changes. The need for a proper balance between the CRS and an effective governance structure is obvious.

Even if these ideas work, the working class also wants respect. In fact, they may want that more than anything else. Decades of neoliberalism have not only hollowed out their economic prospects but also been accompanied by a distinct contempt for them held by professionals and elites. They are different: they don’t act or talk like we do. We look down on them.

Will the ratings system, one that seems to heavily favor those adept at processing information, treat the working class with the respect they deserve? We would hope first that the economic system created by the ratings system would start by compensating workers fairly. This is step 1 and it will probably come naturally to any community-building effort as soon as any real work is called for. Almost nothing can be accomplished without the working class. Step 2, however, is to use heuristics and optimization techniques to minimize the cognitive load required for direct democratic governance. This will start by modifying the language of governance to what normal people understand (as opposed to, say, those with law degrees). This will benefit everyone, not just the working class. Having meaningful input without requiring expertise will be an important step in making governance an acceptable duty for all to bear.

Ultimately respect evolves from cultural conditions. We can design an inclusive economic and governance framework but we cannot design cultural attitudes. We can only hope that the correct attitudes emerge from the designed frameworks and the realization that egalitarianism requires a certain mindset to accompany it.