A conversation across time.
BARUCH SPINOZA1 (1677) stands at a window, looking out. ‘Everything is one substance’, he says quietly. ‘Ethics isn’t about obeying God’s commands — it’s about understanding the nature of reality itself. If we can grasp the underlying unity of things, we can derive how we ought to live’.
DAVID RICARDO2 (1817) looks up from his ledger. ‘Fascinating. You know what else can be understood as one substance? Money. If we think of all economic value as flowing through a single unit of account — a monetary monism, if you will — we can measure everything in the same terms. We can make economics scientific’.
MOSES HESS3 (1837-44) leans forward eagerly. ‘Gentlemen, do you see what this means? If ethics can be scientific, and economics can be measured scientifically through a single unit of account, then we can deliver social justice through economic administration! The unit of account becomes the tool for ethical distribution’.
KARL MARX4 (1867) nods vigorously. ‘Yes, but Hess — this can’t work in just one country. Capital doesn’t respect borders. If this is truly about economics, it must be internationalist. The system has to operate at the global scale or it won’t work at all’.
PAUL CARUS5 (1893) adjusts his spectacles. ‘I want to push back on something Spinoza said. He’s right that ethics should be rational, not based on religious commandments — but we need to be explicit about this. The ethic must come from science, not religion. Only science is universal. Only science can give us the authority to speak across all cultures’.
T.H. HUXLEY6 (1893), pacing energetically: ‘And if our ethic comes from science, then we must apply it scientifically! Darwin showed us evolution, but evolution is blind. In the name of ethics — of reducing suffering — humans must take control of evolution itself. We must guide it consciously’.
JULIUS WOLF78 (1892) clears his throat. ‘Gentlemen, you’re thinking too abstractly. I work with actual financial systems. The Bank of England has this clearinghouse structure — it’s remarkably efficient at settling accounts between parties. What if we scaled that up? Used it to administer international economics and social justice simultaneously? A public-private partnership at the global level — we could create something like a Bank for International Settlements’.
EDUARD BERNSTEIN9 (1899) brightens. ‘Wolf, that’s brilliant! Let me take your clearing structure and merge it with the socialist vision. We don’t need violent revolution — we can achieve social justice through evolutionary change. We use cooperative public-private partnerships to deliver social justice through economic administration. The structure is already there!’
HESS10 (1862) interrupts, troubled: ‘Wait. I’ve been thinking about this for years. Social justice through economics sounds wonderful, but there’s a problem. For this to work — for people to accept international economic administration — they need identity. Not just class consciousness. National identity. People need to feel they belong to something before they’ll participate in international systems’.
THEODOR HERZL11 (1896) looks up sharply. ‘Hess is right. And if national identity requires expression, it requires a state. But new states need recognition. They need the approval of the international system. You see? The international system becomes the gatekeeper—it decides who gets to participate’.
HERMANN COHEN12 (1903) strokes his beard thoughtfully. ‘This is becoming complicated. If we’re going to make this work, we need to formalise it. The ethic — this scientific ethic you’re all discussing — needs to be fused into law. Not just philosophy, not just economics, but enforceable legal structures’.
LASSA OPPENHEIM13 (1905) pulls out a thick manuscript. ‘I can help with that. I’ve been developing an international legal framework — the principles by which states recognise other states, how international law operates. Here’s the structure that could approve new states and bind them to international norms’.
LEONARD WOOLF14 (1916) stands excitedly. ‘Can you all see it now? What you need is an international government. Not a world empire — something more sophisticated. A functionalist superstructure. Let states keep their sovereignty in name, but create international administrative functions that actually run things. I’m calling it functionalism — you build power by taking on technical functions, not by demanding authority’.
ALFRED ZIMMERN15 (1919) is already sketching at a chalkboard. ‘Woolf, your model is perfect for what we’re building. The League of Nations can use exactly this template. International social justice delivered through economic administration, coordinated through specialised agencies. Each agency handles a ‘technical’ function, but together they form a governing structure’.
VLADIMIR LENIN16 (1918) interrupts sharply. ‘You’re all missing the foundation. Before you can administer anything, you need facts. We need accounting and control systems to establish what’s actually happening. No revolutionary change — no administrative system — works without information systems’.
ALEXANDER BOGDANOV1718 (1909-22) adds: ‘Lenin’s right about information, but we need to think bigger. What we’re really doing is creating a collectively-subjective perspective — I call it empiriomonism. We observe the same facts, but we organise them according to shared values. We use culture to educate these values — proletarian culture, proletkult. And we use organisational systems science — tektology — to control the superstructure. It’s systems thinking applied to society itself’.
ZIMMERN19 (1926), returning: ‘Let me be explicit about what we’re building. The Third British Empire — really the international system emerging after the war — is about delivering international social justice through economic administration. That’s the formula. Social outcomes achieved through technical management at the global scale’.
JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES20 (1936) looks up from his calculations. ‘I can give you the economic mechanism for this. Through countercyclical spending, the state can smooth out boom-bust cycles. But here’s what’s really important: this politicises the economy at the state level. Government spending becomes a tool for achieving social justice through economic policy. Now you just need to scale this internationally’.
ROBERT McNAMARA21 (1961-) snaps his briefcase open. ‘I’ll scale it. At the Pentagon, we developed something called PPBS — Planning, Programming, Budgeting System. Everything gets broken down into program elements that can be measured and analysed. Now at the World Bank, we make these programs conditions for third-world aid. If you want development money, you implement our programs. Suddenly Zimmern’s international social justice through economics becomes operational worldwide’.
PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN22 (1955) speaks with quiet intensity: ‘Friends, you’re building something profound, but you’re missing the spiritual dimension. What Huxley said about humans controlling evolution — this isn’t just technical, it’s a spiritual journey. All of consciousness is evolving toward a convergence point, the Omega Point. This entire project is humanity becoming conscious of its own evolution’.
KENNETH BOULDING2324 (1964) looks around the room nervously. ‘I probably shouldn’t say this out loud, but... there’s this ‘invisible college’ of people who understand what you’re all describing. No formal organisation, no membership list. Just people in different countries, different fields, who share this vision. We’re all working toward the same transition. I’m probably going to get in trouble for admitting this exists’. He pauses, then continues: ‘But here’s what we’re really doing — we’re learning to think of Earth as a spaceship. A closed system with finite resources that requires conscious management. We need to use systems theory to administer Spaceship Earth. No more treating the planet like an infinite frontier. It’s a vessel that needs a crew, monitoring instruments, and a control system’.
MAURICE STRONG 25(1971-74) spreads out maps and data sheets. ‘If we’re going to manage this transition, we need global accounting and control systems for the environment. Through UNEP and programs like GEMS, we can monitor the entire planet. We’ll have continuous data streams — satellite surveillance, ground stations, computer modeling at places like IIASA. The environment becomes the substrate we monitor and manage’.
THE IPCC26 (1988) bursts through the door with eyes wide open: ‘The planet is in crisis! Climate change threatens everything! We need immediate coordinated action of Spaceship Earth to prevent catastrophe!’
IUCN27 (1991) adds: ‘And to address this crisis, we need a planetary ethic. Not national ethics, not religious ethics — a unified ethical framework for stewarding the entire Earth’.
HANS KÜNG2829 (1993) nods gravely. ‘Exactly. What we need is a global ethic that transcends individual religions and cultures. A shared moral framework for humanity. A Global Ethic for a New Global Order’.
STEPHEN ROCKEFELLER and MAURICE STRONG30 (2000) unveil a document. ‘We’ve drafted it. The Earth Charter establishes planetary stewardship as an ethical imperative. And because it’s grounded in science it’s universal. It applies to everyone’.
THE UNITED NATIONS31 (2015) announces: ‘We’ve formalised this into a teleology; the Sustainable Development Goals. SDGs 1 through 15 address specific challenges — environment, social and economic justice. But look closely at SDGs 16 and 17: they establish the institutional structure. Peace, justice, and strong institutions. Partnerships for the goals. It’s Woolf’s functionalist architecture, codified into international development policy’.
JEFFREY SACHS32 (2017) steps forward with urgency. ‘The SDGs aren’t optional, they’re imperative. And let me be clear: those who resist this framework they’re the problem. We cannot afford libertarian ideology that place individual choice above our common goals. Everyone must focus on our shared objectives for sustainable development. The science is settled, the ethics are clear, and the economic path is mapped’.
LYNN FORRESTER DE ROTHSCHILD33 (2020) stands with confidence. ‘And we can deliver the capital. Through the Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican, we’ve brought together the world’s largest investment funds and corporations in partnership with moral authority. We’re calling them ‘Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism.’ Private capital, guided by ethical imperatives, delivering social and environmental outcomes. Bernstein’s public-private partnerships for social justice, now operating at the scale of global finance’.
POPE FRANCIS34 (2023) adds: ‘The climate crisis is real and urgent. We must act. And the path forward? Public-private partnerships for social justice, coordinated through civil society organisations and NGOs’. He pauses, looking back toward Hess. ‘What you proposed in the 1840s — delivering social justice through the unit of account, through economic administration — this is precisely what we’re implementing now. The circle is complete’.
THE FABIAN SOCIETY35 (2023) steps forward with the final piece. ‘And here’s how it’ll operate at the national level. ‘In Tandem’ establishes an Economic Policy Coordination Committee which brings together the stakeholders. Wolf’s clearing structure for social justice, now operating through domestic fiscal policy coordination. The elected government retains nominal sovereignty, but fiscal policy increasingly becomes a matter of technocratic coordination. Woolf’s functionalism, implemented at the national scale’.
The room falls silent. The conversation that began with philosophy and ethics has become a system of global administration. Each piece fits perfectly with the others.
Kenneth Boulding was right: The invisible college is very real.
And its project is nearly complete.
Bravo! So much compounding complexity. Watching a flock of cranes sail through the red dawn sky here in the east Australian Tablelands, I wonder about the power of beauty and engaged simplicity.
See my Surviving Revolution: Elite Capture, the Great Reset, and the Coming War for another take.
Elite capture usually leads to revolution. Let's hope so.