Basic Ideas in the History of Humanity.

An idea, a conception, a way of working, of direction, and in general any human activity is considered basic when it has never been formulated by anyone before and is also so simple and powerful that multiple ideas and applications have sprung from it throughout history, but none existed or would exist without having been promoted by that basic idea that is always present in all subsequent development.

Often, it's not possible to attribute this basic idea to a single person, or even a group of people. A very direct example is humanity's use of fire, or the use of the wheel, for example.

Another example is the concept of disease vector, that is, an organism that does not suffer from the disease but does transmit it, developed by Carlos Juan Finlay applied to yellow fever and the Aedes aegypti mosquito as a vector , currently called the Theory of Vectorial Transmission, and another example is the concept of a vaccine where an organism that creates a disease is weakened and inoculated into humans so that they can identify it and develop effective defenses and annihilate it, developed by Louis Pasteur and applied for the first time to a child bitten by a rabid dog.

A basic idea can also be associated with a production process, such as the mass production that Ford implemented to make cars, although he himself acknowledged that the idea "came to him" when he observed how cattle were processed in a slaughterhouse.

I think these examples are sufficiently clear to understand what a basic idea in the History of Humanity is.

This discussion focuses on some basic ideas and their impact on society, and especially on the need for humanity to self-generate at least one basic idea with a strong economic background that is completely viable and effective, and at the same time brings about a balanced and "fair" social justice without affecting those already more favored due to their personal history, their innate abilities, or what they have achieved through their efforts. As a great human being once said, "What is gained by the sweat of the brow or the sweat of the hands does not corrupt." In other words, when helping people study and prepare to fulfill "from each according to their ability," always maintain "to each according to their work," valuing not only the effort but also the results of that effort, even if they are only spiritual, as art is.

It must be kept in mind that all gain is spiritual; even the richest person "swells with pleasure" when showing off the large ship he owns. It's not the ship itself, it's their comforted spirituality. But tell that to the starving person without economic or social means, or to the mentally or physically disabled, and you'll see that this "spirituality" loses its meaning and becomes self-absorbed, seeking in other areas to satisfy their need for personal satisfaction. This space is filled by religions and even Yoga, which promise "improvement in the afterlife" because "here and now" everything is negative for them.

And the goal is to resolve these contradictions by generating a new Basic Idea.

Let's start by noting that there is a very concrete basic idea that has been and is implemented by human society since the beginning of time, and it is the form of hierarchical management from top to bottom that has a structure like an inverted tree where the root holds the highest hierarchy and the branches with their nodes downwards lose not only hierarchy but also permissions to operate, possibilities of implementation, etc.

This "inverted tree" hierarchical structure (root = maximum power, branches = progressive loss of autonomy) is recurrent. This model concentrates control in a few hands, limits horizontal communication, and rewards vertical loyalty. As James C. Scott points out in " Seeing Like a State ”, such rigid hierarchies often fail in the face of local complexity.

A concrete example in this case is the organization of any army, where there is a supreme command, usually held by a single person, although sometimes it is a group of generals, so to speak, for unification. It is well known that "where a captain commands, a soldier does not." And this saying applies recursively from top to bottom throughout the entire tree.

Another hierarchical direction is the one implemented in ancient Egypt, starting with the figure of the Pharaoh at the top, and below him the priests, military leaders, etc., until reaching the inhabitants at the "bottom," perhaps the last step being the slaves.

It turns out that this tree-like organization has been implemented repeatedly throughout human history, whether through kings, tsars, supreme religious leaders—whatever the religious organization—and other forms of power. In other words, it's a very effective basic idea for favoring, controlling, indoctrinating, etc., the many in favor of the few.

I do not intend here to delve into the economic theories that exist to explain the development of humanity, but rather I will focus on this basic idea and what it inexorably causes in all societies with regard to the productive forces.

An example that links slavery with feudalism and even capitalism (the latter linked to economic power) is that in all of them, a hierarchical order of government and production is established. If "those at the top" are not highly socially and economically qualified individuals or groups, the productive forces inevitably stagnate. What doesn't stagnate, but does develop, are the other aspects of society: the arts in general, construction—in this case, favoring "those at the top" more—and other branches of knowledge and human endeavor.

Nor do I intend here to avoid the fact that there are social classes directly linked to the economy they hold. Rather, I reaffirm this in capitalism, as I will explain later.

Now let's look at the reasons for the stagnation of productive forces in states caused by the tree-like hierarchical order. First, it is difficult and sometimes even impossible for branches with different ancestors to communicate and interact with each other, either due to the very design established by "those at the top." As an example, I give the city-states that existed in the European Middle Ages. Second, most of the time the system "rewards" those "below" if and only if they praise and/or favor "those at the top" in some way. This makes "opposition to the hierarchical order" marginal and generally has little influence on socioeconomic and political developments. As an example, I give the Catholic Holy Inquisition, where Galileo Galilei was forced to recant, or what happened to Democrat Bernie Sanders in the United States, where he hasn't even been allowed to "peek" at the highest seats of power.

It may also happen that at some level of the hierarchy, "the one at the top" isn't even remotely efficient, yet thanks to the work "of those below," that entire branch of the tree functions properly. For example, Belgium, which functioned perfectly for 541 days without an elected government. The entire population followed the established tradition of each person fulfilling their duty, whether it be work-related, artistic, or otherwise.

In other words, in the hierarchical tree, the role of the leader of any branch is sometimes fundamental, but the role of "the masses" below a leader can also be fundamental.

Does all of the above mean that we should, can, or must stop using a hierarchical tree to manage all or part of society in any of its forms of functioning, even spiritual ones? Quite the contrary, this is neither possible nor even desirable, so we must continually learn to live with its benefits and consequences.

Now let's look at when and how, for the first time in history, or at least the first time a new basic idea was effectively generated and applied, implying a parallel, multi-organ order that served as an alternative to the single hierarchical order of society's functioning.

And this new basic idea is precisely the creation in the United States of a "democratic" system of three branches of government that operate separately, combined with an electoral system that seeks to exercise power "in favor of the People, by the People, and for the People," and also allowing a fourth branch to clarify the functioning of the other three, which is the press.

These three branches of government, supported by the US Constitution (and its Amendments), are the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. This "new" system of social governance, while maintaining a certain hierarchical order within each branch, is what has fostered, among other things, the accelerated development of capitalism in the US and its many productive and scientific-technical achievements. There are practically no watertight compartments between the branches of government or between the branches of government "and the people." But of course, like all human endeavors, it has depended on them to ensure that the "ideals" are fulfilled in practice. Despite maintaining internal hierarchies, this design sought to avoid watertight compartments between branches of government and citizens (although in practice it faces obstacles such as lobbying and unequal access, as Piketty analyzes ). This boosted capitalism and technical achievements, but did not eliminate the real core of power.

Does this mean that the "pure" hierarchical order has disappeared from society? Quite the opposite: ever since the Constitution itself, the most important and effective power, economic power, has remained even more real and verifiable. Consider the richest individuals and families in each country, who have neither been elected by anyone, like the Egyptian Pharaohs, nor have they been controlled, as they have almost always operated at their own pleasure and whim. And of course, this "power" is private property.

So let's keep in mind that within the framework of the "three branches," they created another branch without even mentioning it: the two-party political system that has since guaranteed that those who hold office in any of the three branches always answer to the true power, which is money, and of course, in conjunction with private property. Those with the most money and property are the masters of the state and its "three branches."

Does this new organization of society want to eliminate the harmful effects on humanity of conquests, wars, massacres, and other calamities? On the contrary, they have worsened because true power lies not in the four "independent" powers but in economic power, which implies a high military power well coupled with it.

"Zero Power" (economic)—highly hierarchical in nature—is exercised by unelected actors (large fortunes, corporations) who operate with almost absolute autonomy. Its dynamics, as Thomas Piketty shows in *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, follow the law *r > g*: capital income exceeds economic growth, perpetuating inequalities. It is the foundation that fuels modern wars and conquests.

And this "true and stronger" power is neither created nor destroyed; in any case, its actors change, either through inheritance or through extensive use of the economic benefits it offers to those who even start "almost from scratch," like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. And let it be clear that on every path to success, hundreds, if not thousands and millions of "actors" have been left behind who fail. I say actors because they can be both individuals and companies as such.

And why did the so-called "real socialism" collapse, despite what some socially achieved or "scientifically" proclaimed to be the necessary future of human society? Simply because its "real" implementation was nothing more than a highly hierarchical order (read: USSR/Stalin and its variants) that implied a feudal economy that slowed the development of productive forces, despite "scientific" boasts to the contrary. There is no shortage of evidence of this. It is true that the harassment of these countries from all angles that capitalism carried out greatly influenced their downfall, including betrayals and intelligence penetrations provoked by organizations like the CIA or government groups like the one that accompanied President Ronald Reagan. But it is also true that the internal malfunctioning caused by the political hierarchy also played a role. In Cuba, the people call it "the internal blockade," as opposed to the all kinds of measures that "the external blockade" provokes and suffocates the people themselves.

So what can be done to maintain the achievements of the "US" system while reducing its inequalities in every area you look at? And also to take away its conquering and warrior qualities.

First , dismantle the political party system and ensure that every citizen votes directly for those who will govern them at any level. That is, an end to electoral colleges, assemblies of people elected by the people who in turn elect others without direct citizen participation, etc.

Utopian? Maybe so. But we should strive to create functional societies that, while competing with each other, do so in peace and harmony, without war or conquest.

How? By creating a new socioeconomic theory that supports these aspirations and objectively explains what hierarchical orders have created, for better or worse.

But all this will be discussed in other articles… Thank you very much for your attention,

Octavio Báez Hidalgo. June 2025.