World bosses challenge the public

The concept of a system expresses holism. Using a somewhat old expression, we can say that “a system is a holism that includes its members and excludes outsiders”. If I need to elaborate on this expression for our young friends; a system, which is a holistic structure, gathers all its members, that is, those who are relevant, and blocks all outsiders. The meaning of this expression is that every system has its own mechanisms of operation and change; the system cannot be intervened with whenever and however one pleases.

            Why did I make this explanation now? The reason is that Trump coming to power and gathering around him the digital bosses who are in the position of world leaders, with the exception of Elon Musk for a special reason, was a very terrifying message to the whole world as much as it was to Europe and China. The message was terrifying from two perspectives. First, both our physical and intellectual governance is now being taken out of our hands and entrusted to three or four arrogant individuals acting according to their own whims, or rather, their own wallets. While the games on mobile phones are already thoroughly dulling the brains of people who have not grown up, they also ensure that the brains of people who have made some progress think in the direction and manner of the system's bosses. Thus, those who think they are thinking are kept on the track desired by the enemies of society.

            The second terrifying consequence of recent developments is related to the phenomenon of artificial intelligence (AI). While we, the people of developing societies, have tied the solution to all our current account deficit problems to the dream of organ transplantation, they are making an artificial version of the organ we cannot bear to use, and, snickering, they are substituting our already unused essence with their own thoughts. Thus, we are surrendering our rational thought system, which we have never been able to properly realize in the field of politics and all other fields, to the structures presented to us by the long arms of the world bosses. Interestingly, just as we convince ourselves that we have produced wonderful thoughts, almost rushing out with a cry of “eureka!”, we can also sell this jugglery to the other party as our own skill. Perhaps the world bosses are now thinking that there is no fraud involved in this process, because we enter artificial intelligence with our bird-like minds that we think are our own will, ask our question, and peacefully put our faith in the answer it gives. What should the world bosses who invented this tremendous system do; if people, without passing what is presented to them through the filter of reason and logic, put their faith in what is presented to them in complete mental laziness, the fault lies not with the one who tries to rule the world by using their mind, but with the mindless one who worships the artificial intelligence they have mythologized without using their mind.

            The slightly good side of the matter is that not everyone perceives artificial intelligence and digital developments as a blessing free from all kinds of control, and there can be those who oppose this situation. However, the interesting aspect of the matter from another angle is that those who oppose uncontrolled development on the grounds that recent developments should be used more rationally and under supervision are this time covertly opposed with ugly attacks by the secret knights of those aspiring to world bossdom. Such an event took place in recent days around Daron Acemoğlu, one of the professors at Harvard University.

            We know Professor Daron Acemoğlu as the Turkey-born Harvard University economics professor who, along with Simon Johnson and James Robinson, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2024 for their work on how institutions affect the prosperity of nations.  With his latest book and some of the articles he has written, Acemoğlu has recently been subjected to somewhat fierce attacks by some of his academic friends and The Economist magazine. So, what did Acemoğlu say to be subjected to such a fierce attack? Acemoğlu did not oppose artificial intelligence, but he emphasized that under conditions where the artificial intelligence craze is not supervised, it could lead to very dangerous developments for humanity. Indeed, if the situation cannot be supervised, all our behaviors and decisions will fall under the command and directive of artificial intelligence. In this case, neither democracy nor human rights can be spoken of. Gradually, all people will be transformed into tin soldiers and can be directed in accordance with the will of a virtual president or a guerrilla management cadre.

            If we look at the issue from the perspective of general criticisms, the general criticism directed at Acemoğlu by the academic community can be gathered mainly in two points. Although there is no doubt that he is well-versed in the latest quantitative techniques due to the institution and position he is in, it is voiced that he widely cites works in the fields of history and literature in his works, glossing over the subject with examples without going too deep into it. The criticisms developed regarding the theses he put forward are of a more serious dimension. Namely, it has been argued that he used the result as an assumption, especially in the issue of the relationship between institutions and economic development, which was deemed worthy of the Nobel Prize. In other words, the view has been put forward that it is debatable whether developed institutions will pave the way for economic development, or whether development will pave the way for institutionalization.

            To conclude the subject by addressing Acemoğlu's theses and the objections directed at him from a societal perspective; first, Acemoğlu, who serves as a professor in the dominant institutions of the system, can do nothing but make such loose criticism. Because Acemoğlu also knows that Harvard University, where he is currently on the staff, once dismissed Paul Sweezy from its staff by accusing him of being a communist.  The second is, again as a typical mistake of thinkers woven with standard American or pro-Western ideologies, to attribute the responsibility for the disruptions experienced not to the system, but to politicians or wrong practices, by voicing concepts such as freedom or justice in the defense of pure bourgeois democracy, without taking into account the functioning of the economy and the social distribution of income. However, this argument is not true. In a situation where the social distribution of income is not appropriate, neither justice nor freedom can be spoken of! Instead, it is necessary to see the social course within holism by grasping the essence and functioning of the system well.