In light of China's new social credit tyranny I think it is time to release this. I struggled a long time over whether or not democracy was better or worse than authoritarian government, but now that the Chinese have turned their back on any semblance of freedom I have decided that it is time for the technique of democratic conquest to be talked about openly.
I came up with idea back in June of 2017.
Last time in The invasion of the social by capital we looked at the process of bringing capitalism into democracy through non-aggression insurance. The general idea behind that article was that a form of compulsory insurance might eliminate democracy's tendency to destroy the economy over time with an accumulation of burdensome regulations, and to elucidate an intermediary step between the present condition and a more anarcho capitalist order.
The founding text of this site is Necameral Future, which was invaluable in helping me flesh out my ideas, but which deals (rather poorly) with the issue of "rift": a term that can be defined as follows;
the tendency of capitalism to produce ever greater levels of social dysfunction and personal alienation by taking humans farther away from the conditions under which they evolved, which they are adapted to, and which their natural cognitive biological software is designed to navigate. "Rift" is the steadily widening gap between the conditions we currently live under — conditions produced by our technologies — and the conditions we evolved under, or the conditions of the "ancestral environment." Rift is THE problem of the modern age. Every philosophy and ideology is engaged with the problem of rift whether it realizes it or not.This whole site is about rift. The whole philosophy of accelerationism is a careless desire to exacerbate rift with the goal of either causing the system to collapse from its own internal contradictions, or using those tensions to accomplish radical emancipatory change. This is a rather naive view of the situation because in the same way that the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, capitalism can remain alive longer than the species can remain fecund.
Here at AP we are far more pessimistic than any other camp, seeing no salvation available in either collapse or transcendence, but our pessimism in factual matters is coupled with an optimism in possibilities. Where some believe the system will destroy itself, and others believe it will save us, we believe the hell will only get worse, that it will go on forever, and that the only salvation will be the one we make for ourselves. We also believe WE CAN save ourselves. Call this the "optimistic non-lazy approach," since all the other approaches are either lazy in thought or lazily pessimistic. (Pessimism in action is a form of laziness, and people who think the world will end generally want it to end because it solves all of modernity's problems).
Anyway, a possibility exists for the rift to be closed, by either invading the biological with the technological, (e.g., CRISPR gene editing, embryo selection) or invading the technological with the biological, (e.g., social technologies, organizational methods, new religions adapted to modern circumstances).
As a topic, this follows non-aggression insurance by invading the capital with the social, because it is an idea for democratizing the whole world.
The idea is simple: a foreign dictatorship is flooded with vouchers. These vouchers are only given to small business owners, and can only redeemed by leaders in a dictatorship authorized by The State Department. The theory is that democracy evolves when the middle-class achieves the financial power to influence their government, and that if you set up an operation that mimics the financial pattern of a campaign contribution engine then you turn every general into a politician who must money-grub for contributions.
Once the people are paying the salaries of their generals the generals will grub for shekels, the people will achieve power over their leaders, and the leaders will start to make concessions, including possibly the right to vote.
Also, since you control who receives the vouchers and who redeems them for cash you can influence the election by saying, "you get a voucher but not you," and "you can redeem a voucher but not him." And so the regime become a "colony democracy," rather than a fake/puppet democracy. In fact, nested campaign contribution voucher systems can form the basis for an alternate form of federalism, or even for a form of federalism with multiple centers/political capitols. You simply have several nations flooding a country with vouchers to express their political will in that nation. All have the aggregate effect of supporting democracy while shaping its internal policy.
Now imagine that your have a dictatorship like North Korea or Egypt. Imagine that the dictator gets news that vouchers have flooded into his country, and that diplomats are handing out cash for redeeming them. So you do what any good dictator would do and you send your chief of secret police around to gather them up and redeem them with the US government so you can get all the money. But the US government says that you can only redeem vouchers given to you voluntarily, and that there is a limit to the amount each general can redeem, so you burn the vouchers you cannot redeem.
The other generals see this and decide the next time they come across some vouchers they aren't going to turn them all in, but instead will redeem them for cash on the down low, while giving every peasant who hands over his vouchers a small kickback to encourage redemption. Now you have sewn mistrust among the senior staff. The generals who break ranks will wind up financially empowered to move against the dictator, or against the generals who do not break ranks. One day they will have the resources to overthrow him. You have created an engine of financial pressure that selects in favor of generals willing to let the voucher system work. If this dictator doesn't play ball, someone will.
The key is to make the cost of gathering up and burning the vouchers more costly than redeeming them. Multiple levels also help and should be introduced as soon as possible. Voucher Level "C" is redeemed by Level "B" which is redeemed by Level "A." You make it so that the top level needs the one below it, and the one below that to participate, otherwise it cannot get paid. To redeem Class A Vouchers requires multiple accompanying vouchers, maybe two Class B Vouchers and four C Vouchers. You make sure there are two times as many B's and four times as many C's in circulation.
After breaking the senior staff of their loyalty you move to build up the financial structure as rapidly as possible, so that the whole country comes to resemble a campaign contribution engine, and even if they never get democracy the vouchers are a form of democracy, and the feedback being produced is measured in terms of how thoroughly the man at the top chases redemptions.
You use the payments from vouchers to select in favor of pro-democracy characters within the regime, you pit people against each other and make the grub for contributions, you make the people at the top compete for the favor of the people in the bottom within the business community, who they cannot exterminate because they depend on for tax revenue, and you break the dictatorship of its cohesion using money as a weapon.
And by the way, this is probably how democracy developed in the first place, using actual money rather than vouchers, and local rather than foreign operators.