Accounting & Control

A birds-eye view synthesis of intellectual and political history

Moses Hess framed socialism as an ethical project to be realised through the reorganisation of economic relations (social justice through economic governance); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels systematised that insight into a materialist conception of history and translated it into a programme of practical political action.

---

The Circular Economy

---

In practice, their model needs the blanket of surveillance Lenin later spells out as accounting & control, which ultimately shifts real power to whoever commands the unit of account — the central bank — while Marx through the ‘fragment on machines’ points to a fully automated future that eliminates the bourgeois middle class.

The Marx Deception

Hess’s vision is picked up by Alfred Zimmern in The Third British Empire (1926), which calls for the second British empire to be replaced by a commonwealth, used for the similar purpose of international social justice through economic governance.

The Third British Empire

Alexander Bogdanov develops Lenin’s ‘accounting & control’ through supply chain analysis and early-stage systems theory (Tektology), while Marx’s producer–consumer relations are carried forward into input–output analysis by Wassily Leontief.

Alexander Bogdanov

McNamara puts Leontief’s vision to work through PPBS, and scales it via conditional Third World aid run through USAID and the World Bank — while ‘Spaceship Earth’ normalises the world-as-system view, governable by input–output analysis.

The Operationalisation of Spaceship Earth

Meanwhile, Kenneth Boulding and Ludwig von Bertalanffy push Bogdanov’s Tektology into holarchical General Systems Theory; C. West Churchman bolts on ethical conditionality; via Erich Jantsch this flows into adaptive management — then global modelling through agencies like the IIASA, the IPCC, Planetary Boundaries, Digital Twins, and the contemporary AI which presently threaten to eliminate all bourgeoise jobs, precisely as Marx outlined.

Planetary Boundaries

Surveillance data — live-stream satellite feeds, public-health surveillance, city IoT sensors, and even social-media and mobile-phone data — is piped into digital twins, which forward-predict on the basis of gathered surveillance information. This commonly yields indicators: processed surveillance data that sketch contemporary societal trajectories, stored in indexed datasets such as the SDG Indicators.

Conservation and Global Surveillance

PPBS evolves into Results-Based Management (RBM), with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as traceable program parameters. RBM + KPIs map directly onto SDG indicators, the basis for many World Bank development programs where funding is withheld when threshold targets are not achieved.

Inaugurated in Dallas - Part 1

Consequently, Third World development-aid programs with attached conditionalities trace back to an architecture that ultimately rests on Marx’s producer–consumer relations, running through Lenin’s ‘accounting & control’ (surveillance and enforcement) and Bogdanov’s Tektology (systems theory).

The Lenin Inversion

And the entire system rests on a unit of account controlled by central banks, distributed for purposes deemed ‘ethical’ — precisely the operating logic set in motion by Hess, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Bogdanov.

Architectural Inversion

And it ends with ‘ethics’ — social, environmental, economic — filtered through an intergenerational lens and executed via CBDCs, where conditionality is enforceable at the individual producer–consumer relation — exactly as Marx’s logic implies.

Unbroken Line

In contemporary politics, we’re sold two political ‘sides’: a social-justice left versus an individual-financial-liberty right. In the United States, Biden leans into a Liberation-Theology-flavoured social-justice frame, while Trump’s Prosperity-Gospel rhetoric aligns with individual financial liberty. But what no one bothers telling you is that both are facets of the Zimmern–Hess programme: international social justice executed through economic governance.

Paul Carus

Even the grandest election now runs as a Hegelian dialectic that resolves to central-bank dominance — and to Paul Carus’s interfaith infiltration of the 1893 Parliament of the World’s Religions. Its 1993 centennial, via Hans Küng (with Leonard Swidler), rebranded the move as ‘A Global Ethic’.

A Global Ethic

Consequently, vote for a mainstream parts like Labour or Tory — it won’t matter in the slightest. The only difference is the route of implementation. The end objective is (international) social justice through economic governance, administered by central banks — should you align with the trajectory and you may even be selected to participate in the arc towards ‘Inclusive Capitalism’.

Inclusive Capitalism

Yet the future is not written. The trajectory may be planned, but we do not live in a deterministic world — even if Spinoza wrote his pivotal Ethica on that assumption.

The entire vision rests upon inversion. Accept Marx’s premise and the sequence follows with logical inevitability; refuse it, and the door to genuine freedom opens.

Not the artificial kind Marx and Engels covertly promoted which lead to central banker enslavement through promises of a ‘moral economy’.

• Start with people. Ideas and choices come first; the economy is a tool, not our fate.

• Keep real prices and cash. Let buyers and sellers set prices; don’t allow ‘programmable’ money that can be switched off or limited by purpose.

• Put rules around money, not inside it. Set clear legal limits on what banks and central banks can do — don’t turn the payment system into a policy remote.

• Keep ethics human. Let morals live in people and communities, not in scorecards and dashboards — and always keep a real opt-out.

The Moral Economy