Hegemony Vs. Multipolarity: Lame Multipolarity Vs. Distributed Multipolarity – OpEd

The GDKP (Gross Domestic Knowledge Product) is not a simple rehash of GDP  data (Gross Domestic Knowledge Product) or a manipulated  search for knowledge contents hidden in some entries of the National Accounting System. GDKP is an epochal innovation of a vision of the wealth of nations that perhaps alone can save the world from the sixth mass destruction, as feared by the United Nations themselves.

This vision is epochal because it marks a historic shift from a purely materialistic idea of ​​the wealth of nations (GDP), born of the industrial revolution, to an idea of ​​the wealth of nations born of new mass knowledge produced thanks to the Internet and the digital economy. Knowledge new because produced not anymore by special controlled entities and provided to selected class subject; knowledge new because for the first time in history thanks to internet and to the digital economy, all people wherever they are may produce knowledge, the one they prefer, for instance even artistic, ethical, folkloristic or religious knowledge, and sell it to all people wherever they are.

From monopolar world to lame multipolar world 

This shift also serves to clarify a misunderstanding that many are falling into when discussing the confrontation between US hegemony and multipolarity. The misunderstanding lies in the fact that for many, multinationalism is nothing more than a fragmented vision of hegemony. The USA vs China, with partial integration of Russia, would create three or at most four polarities (adding India) , ignoring the legitimate, autonomous economic aspirations of all other nations. Three frameworks, at most five polarities (adding Europe if moves towards a militarization of EU) , based on the military force which all other nations would have to accept, choosing a leader nation as a point of reference with small (and dangerous) escapes to different territories. Some times very dangerous, see case of Ukraina or selected countries of middle est in addition to South American deeply controlled democracies.

It should be noted that this multinationalism would not change the model of wealth promoted by the GDP, but rather would dramatize it because it would sharpen the search for raw materials by any means, multiplying warfare, which would make  the unfortunate main battlefield of all raw material searchers of Africa, not open to the highest bidder but captured by the most determined aggressor. This multipolarity, which replaces monopolarity with three or four  or five regional leaders hegemonies, would significantly increase the possibility of conflict, would not reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and would further exacerbate the polarization of national wealth, resulting in a concentration of wealth in a fewer individuals and an increase in global poverty, by itself in Internet time, a sure producers of military conflicts. 

The great danger of multipolar GDP (lame multipolar)

The reason for this danger is easy to explain. The GDP is the result of industrial revolution, although it was only calculated in the 1930s thanks to the brilliant vision of Kuznets, who was the first to propose a single figure to indicate a nation’s wealth. In GDP that single final number is value-cost of material goods. Which goods? Any goods with assumptions that that only material goods produce happiness. With one basic limitation:  not the happiness of all the people who inhabit a nation, but simply the happiness of those who produce them. At what cost? Disease? Young people abuse? Sex discrimination?  That single number doesn’t say anything, and it doesn’t reflect the quality of the material goods produced.

The GDP is therefore based on a model of economic development that provides:

a. that raw materials be collected at the lowest possible price wherever they are produced by any means, even weapons, which with the decrease of them, becomes the key tool

b. that processing takes place at the lowest possible labor cost wherever it is found.

c. that the products produced are mass-produced for every individual in the world.

Fragmented Monopolarism increase war dangers

This fragmentation of US hegemony, which would see the world divided into three or four areas of influence, would increase the risk of war rather than control it, because it would exacerbate attempts to acquire raw materials at the lowest possible prices, reducing labor costs everywhere to compete, in fact exacerbating the negative components of the economic model underlying GDP, making two processes almost inevitable:

1. The destruction of global markets, which alone can increase global wealth;

2. The concentration of the conquest of regions of Africa by the multinationals of the various hegemonic leader taking place of nations.

It is therefore appropriate to consider this a lame multiplarity, even more dangerous than the hegemony it seeks to correct. Therefore, it is not the required multipolarity.

From lame multiplarity to distributed multipolarity, from GDP to GDKP.

The fundamental problem for ensuring the emergence of a safer and possibly more just world is not solved by moving from hegemony to hegemonic multipolarity (lame multipolarity), but by creating a distributed multipolarity that includes a multiplicity of subjects: Europeans, Arabs, South Americans, obviously Asians, but also, for the first time, Africans.

In other words the alternative to monopolarity is not lame pluripolarity (that is, born of middle-size hegemonies) but the realization of widespread multipolarity.

This is possible only with the transition from GDP to GDKP, which India is trying to achieve, the first in the world.

In the next article, we will see how and why the GDKP is the only system that can produce the transition from unipolar hegemony to correct multipolarity (distributed multipolarity), which is not the creation of four or five geographic quasi-hegemonies (lame multipolarity), which, being based on GDP per area, is even more dangerous in military terms for the salvation of the planet, or rather, of the human race. And in a subsequent article, it will be interesting to understand how India positions itself with respect to this epochal change in measuring the wealth of nations, thanks to an intervention by Manoranjana Gupta, who is the primary point of reference for the application of the GDKP INDIA.