It was discovered some time ago that it was not Shakespeare that wrote all those plays that we thought were written by Shakespeare, but it was another man called Shakespeare.
A myth of direct democracy
Let us get rid of politicians and bankers, is a thought that is not in the mouth of those that occupy Wall street only but in the hearts and minds of many disappointed by the deeds and “un-deeds” of politicians and bankers. They all plea for “a real democracy”, a kind of direct economy in which each individual would directly influence final decisions with no politicians as middlemen. That all men that composed true democracy of ancient Greek style (Agora type) were all men (all 500 of them living in Athens, excluding women, enslaved people and other rubbish) does not come to mind such contemporary prophet of direct democracy.
It is so comfortable and natural to dream about the future based on past events within circumstances that never appear again. Dreams are natural – but still only dreams. Dreams of a man living in poverty, free like a bird, not needing shoes and raincoats. Would not we all men and women be equal (more equal) if we would not differentiate ourselves by shoes that I cannot afford to buy.
As we can say that a bird is as much a living creature as a man or a woman, we can say that ancient direct democracy is a democracy as complicated as contemporary EU or US democracy. It is not as much as barter trade among ancient tribes has nothing to do with futures trade or even trade of East India Company although all of them are called trade.
Past time does not exist (anymore)
Why then could we not collect better parts of ancient traditions and combine them with the contemporary standard of living? Why could not we execute direct democracy indulged by warm Manhattan apartment and avoid corrupted and inefficient politicians? Why could we not barter trade and avoid banks and banksters?
The answer lies in the unavoidable properties of all complex systems. It is in the “nature” of all complex systems (not only living creatures) that properties of such systems emerge over time. Properties like legs, brains, cellphones, money, banks and politicians emerge through natural selection. Properties that do not benefit do not emerge or, in the best case, vanish or are displaced by better evolutionary solutions (emergencies). But what is even more important is that each new emergency immediately becomes an environment for all other already existing emergencies. All historical emergencies that still exist are proven to be efficient when they exist and not in their past. That means that they are changed over time. Should they not be changed, they would not exist anymore. Should they, by an act of any forced change back, they would immediately fail to play a constructive role in the present complexity.
For that same reason, we should deduct that there is no GOD, no one power, that would or could decide to create or annihilate politicians or banks. Should a disaster happen that would eradicate most of our civilization, the remaining few would incorporate their memetic legacy into some new form of the political system and trading system that would rest on the tradition of present democracy and banking system. Even they would not be able to jump back but would have to adapt existing tradition to new circumstances.
As claimed by some blockchain prophets, let us suppose that blockchain will disrupt present democracy and the present banking system. As a member of one blockchain community, I cannot but see the disruptive nature of blockchain ideology based on technology. But since we cannot predict the future regardless of how much we trust certain ideologies or technologies (technology = ideology), we should only suppose significant disruption of blockchain at the moment.
Should that disruption happen, would that not disapprove my claim that we cannot apply direct democracy and cannot get rid of bankers? As much as cars ruined many industries serving horses but did not ruin but enhanced travel and trade and enabled emergencies of until then unimaginable properties, so much a part of politicians and bankers are going to evaporate to make political decision making and banking even more robust, more resilient and more productive. Politicians and bankers might even be named differently in the future. However, the functions that they serve at the moment are still going to exist but on a different level, adjusted to new circumstances.
Which Shakespeare do we want to get rid of?
So, we should say that banks that we know now will not be understood as banks 500 years from now, but something else that humans living in 2500 will call banks. And same goes for politicians.