The Need and Feasibility of the UN to Lead the Human Community in Creating a Digital Planet(010)
— An Open Letter to UN Secretary-General Guterres and Global Sages
5.1.2 New Wealth Across Civilisations
The essence of civilization is a social consensus and social awareness, primarily embodied in human spiritual civilization. However, this spiritual civilization is determined by material civilization, which includes social civilization, material civilization, technological civilization, ecological civilization, and so on. Ultimately, they all affect spiritual civilization and form a kind of human social consensus and social awareness.
Marx believed that “changes in the economic base will sooner or later lead to the transformation of the entire superstructure” (Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, published in 1859). Traditional Chinese culture also contains such understanding, as the saying goes, “With a full granary, one knows the rites; with sufficient food and clothing, one knows honor and disgrace” (Biography of Guan Yan in Records of the Grand Historian). Since the economic base determines the superstructure, the development of human social civilization ultimately depends on the degree of economic development. We use “total social and economic output (total social wealth measurable by currency)” as the criterion for measuring the economic base and dividing civilization stages. This is basically consistent with the commonly used criterion of productive forces. However, the simple criterion of productive forces cannot judge when a society’s civilization transformation begins or ends.
Using total social and economic output as the criterion for division can be quantified. The core element of quantification mainly refers to new wealth that is representative and decisive in this civilization era. We call this new wealth “New wealth across civilizations.” “New wealth across civilizations” refers to assets that existed in the old civilization era but had no value or their value was not commoditized and socialized. These assets contain enormous productive power, and under conditions of commodification and socialization, they will lead to changes in production relations and give rise to new civilization transformations. In the new civilization era, the value of these assets can be developed and shared by everyone, ultimately playing a decisive role in the total social and economic output of the era.
“New wealth across civilizations” is the value subject of the new wealth system in the new civilization era.
When the value of “new wealth across civilizations” in a society’s new era begins to manifest universally and is socialized, we can say that the new civilization transformation of this era has begun. When the economic output of this “new wealth across civilizations” exceeds (by more than 50%) the economic output of “new wealth across civilizations” in the old era, we consider that this society has completed the civilization transformation.
The research results in Figure 39 are presented here.
Let’s first look at the left half, which mainly analyzes and summarizes the history of past civilizations. We believe that cattle and sheep were the New Wealth Across Civilizations of the primitive civilization era, land was the New Wealth Across Civilizations of the agricultural civilization era, and intellectual property rights were the New Wealth Across Civilizations of the industrial civilization era.
It is obvious that land existed in the primitive civilization era, but it had no value. It was only with the emergence of metallurgy and domestication technology that people were able to cultivate crops and raise livestock on the land, and the concept of land was born. Only after land could be exchanged and traded as a commodity did its value become widespread. Moreover, everyone can cultivate land, treat land as a commodity, and freely exchange and trade it. When ordinary people can develop land, trade land, and share the value of land, it indicates that this society has begun to transition from the primitive civilization era to the agricultural civilization era. When the social and economic total supported by the value of land exceeds the social and economic total supported by the value of cattle and sheep, it can be considered that this society has entered the agricultural civilization era.
Similarly, in the agricultural civilization era, although intellectual property rights such as technology, skills, techniques, and artistry existed and had value, they did not form commodities and their value was not socialized. Therefore, there was no concept of intellectual property rights. It was only with the emergence of patent rights that intellectual property rights could be traded as commodities, and their value was socialized. The value of intellectual property rights then became widespread. When ordinary people can develop intellectual property rights, trade intellectual property rights, and share the value of intellectual property rights, it indicates that this society has begun to transition from the agricultural civilization era to the industrial civilization era. When the social and economic total supported by the value of intellectual property rights exceeds the social and economic total supported by the value of land, it indicates that this society has entered the industrial civilization era.
According to this standard, we compare China and the United States. Due to the lack of more scientific and precise statistical data on land value and intellectual property value, we only use the output value of the construction industry to represent land value and the output value of the manufacturing industry to represent intellectual property value. This indicator is certainly not scientific and representative. However, our aim is to illustrate the issue.
China’s land value only began to emerge after the reform and opening-up period. Up to now, the wealth value supported by land (including the real estate industry, physical commerce, and its supporting physical industries) still far exceeds the wealth value supported by intellectual property. In 2021, in China’s secondary industry, the proportion of the construction industry is 65.1%, while all other industrial industries, including manufacturing, account for less than 35%.
As shown in Figure 40, the proportion of manufacturing industry growth in China’s GDP has been declining year by year since the reform and opening-up period. This is because the value of land has been rapidly increasing during this period. Early Chinese manufacturing did not have intellectual property rights. The concept of intellectual property rights only emerged after the reform and opening-up period. However, the value of manufacturing supported by intellectual property rights has only just begun to rise in 2020. Therefore, it can be said that Chinese society has only completed the transformation from primitive civilization to agricultural civilization and from agricultural civilization to industrial civilization, but it has not yet been completed.
As for the United States, after the real estate bubble burst in the 1930s, the value of intellectual property rights began to increase rapidly. In 1946, the proportion of the manufacturing industry in the US GDP exceeded that of the construction industry, accounting for 24.1% and 9.6% respectively. Although the boom in the US manufacturing industry in that year was influenced by post-war economic recovery, it can be considered as a sign that the US also completed the transformation from agricultural civilization to industrial civilization during this period.
If we acknowledge that economic base determines superstructure, then the various differences that have emerged in the recent dialogue between China and the United States are actually the objective manifestation of the will of two countries at different stages of civilization. Of course, not only in the case of China and the United States, but also between developed countries that have completed the transformation to industrial civilization and underdeveloped countries that have not yet completed this transformation, such differences are generally present.
Looking at the right half of the diagram, it mainly focuses on predictions for the present and the future. We define the new civilization as the “civilization of wisdom,” and we believe that NFTs (Non-fungible tokens) are the New wealth across civilizations of the era of the civilization of wisdom.
In the era of industrial civilization, intellectual property rights were the New wealth across civilizations, but NFTs did not seem to exist during this period. In essence, NFTs are also a type of intellectual property rights. The fundamental difference between them is that intellectual property rights belong to centralized authorization or government authorization, while NFTs belong to distributed authorization or self-authorization. As we can see, ordinary people can now develop, trade, and share the value of NFTs on the market. It is because of this that we believe that the transition from the era of industrial civilization to the era of the civilization of wisdom has already begun.
Why is the new civilization the civilization of wisdom, and why are NFTs the New wealth across civilizations of the civilization of wisdom? Next, we will explain these two aspects in detail.
(to be continued)
The English translation is mainly done by AI and is inevitably not accurate enough. Please refer to the original Chinese text below for a more accurate understanding.
联合国引领人类社会打造数字地球的必要性和可行性（010）
— — 致联合国秘书长古特雷斯及全球贤达的公开信
5.1.2 跨文明新财富
文明的本质，是一种社会共识和社会觉悟。主要体现的是人类精神文明。然而，这种精神文明，又是由物质文明决定的。文明，包括社会文明、物质文明、科技文明、生态文明、物质文明……等等。但它们最终都作用于精神文明，形成一种人类的社会共识和社会觉悟。
马克思认为：“经济基础的变化，迟早会导致整个巨大的上层建筑的转变。（1859年出版的马克思《政治经济学批判》序言）”。中国传统文化中，也包含着这样的认识，正所谓“仓廪实而知礼节，衣食足而知荣辱。（《史记·管晏列传》）”。既然是经济基础决定上层建筑。那么，人类社会文明的发展，归根到底还是取决于经济基础的发达程度。我们以“社会经济总量（可以用货币计算的社会财富总量））”作为经济基础的衡量标准，以此来划分文明阶段。这与大家普遍采用的生产力划分标准基本一致。但用简单的生产力划分标准，无法判断一个社会的文明转型什么情况下算开始，什么情况下算完成。
而用社会经济总量作为划分标准，可以被量化。量化的核心要素，主要指在这个文明时代具有代表性和决定性意义的新财富。这种新财富我们称之为“跨文明新财富”。“跨文明新财富”，指的是一种在旧文明时代已经存在，但没有价值，或价值没有被商品化和社会化的资产。这种资产蕴含着巨大的生产力，在商品化和社会化条件下，将导致生产关系变革，催生新文明转型。在新文明时代，这种资产价值能被每个人开发和分享，最终对这个时代社会经济总量的大小起着决定性作用。
“跨文明新财富”，是构建新文明时代新财富体系的价值主体。
当一个社会，其新时代“跨文明新财富”的价值开始普遍呈现，也就是开始被社会化时，我们就说，这个时代的新文明转型已经开始了。而当这个“跨文明新财富”的经济总量，超过（50%以上）旧时代“跨文明新财富”经济总量时，我们就认为，这个社会已经完成了文明转型。
图39展示的就是我们在这方面的研究成果。
我们先看左半部分，主要是对过往文明历史的分析和归纳。我们认为，牛羊是原始文明时代的跨文明新财富，土地是农耕文明时代的跨文明新财富，知识产权是工业文明时代的跨文明新财富。
很显然，土地在原始文明时代就存在着，但没有价值。只是由于冶金和驯化技术出现，人们可以在土地上耕种作物和饲养禽畜后，土地概念才诞生。土地作为商品可以交换和交易后，土地价值才普遍呈现。而且，每个人都可以开垦土地，将土地作为商品，自由交换和交易。当普通人都可以开发土地、交易土地、分享土地价值时。就说明，这个社会由原始文明时代向农耕文明时代的转型开始了。而当土地价值所支撑的社会经济总量，超过牛羊价值支撑的社会经济总量时。就可认为，这个社会已经进入到农耕文明时代了。
同理，在农耕文明时代，尽管技术、技能、技巧、技艺这类知识产权都存在，也具备价值，但没有形成商品，其价值没有被社会化。所以，也没有知识产权这个概念。直到专利权出现，知识产权可以作为商品交易，其价值被社会化。知识产权的价值才普遍呈现。当普通人都可以开发知识产权、交易知识产权、分享知识产权价值时。说明这个社会由农耕文明时代向工业文明时代的转型开始了。而当知识产权价值所支撑的社会经济总量，超过土地价值支撑的社会经济总量时。说明这个社会已经进入了工业文明时代。
按照这个标准来对照中美两国。由于缺乏更科学、更精准的土地价值和知识产权价值统计数据。我们仅以建筑业产值代表土地价值，制造业产值代表知识产权价值。这个指标当然也不科学、缺乏代表性。但我们旨在说明问题。
中国的土地价值，是在改革开放后才开始普遍呈现。而至今，土地所支撑的财富价值（包括房地产业、实体商业及其配套实体产业），依然大大超过知识产权所支撑的财富价值。2021年，中国第二产业中，建筑业占比为65.1%。包括制造业在内的其他所有工业产业，占比还不到35%。
如图40所示，中国的制造业增长占GDP的比重，在改革开放后，呈逐年下降趋势。因为，土地价值这期间开始迅速增长。而中国早期制造业是没有知识产权的。改革开放后才有了知识产权概念，但由知识产权支撑的制造业，其价值到了2020年，才刚刚抬头。故此，可以认为中国社会仅仅是完成了由原始文明向农耕文明的转型，由农耕文明向工业文明的转型，实际上到目前还没有完成。
至于美国，20世纪30年代房地产泡沫破裂后，知识产权价值开始迅速增加。1946年，美国制造业占GDP的比重超过了建筑业，分别为24.1%和9.6%。虽然这一年美国制造业的大爆发是受战后经济恢复影响。但作为一种标志，可以认为，美国也是在这个时期，才完成由农耕文明向工业文明的转型。
如果我们承认经济基础决定上层建筑的话。那么，中美两国近年来对话中出现的种种分歧，其实是两个处于不同文明阶段国家意志的客观体现。当然，不仅仅是中美两国，全球完成了工业文明转型的发达国家，与尚未完成工业文明转型的不发达国家之间，这种分歧也是普遍存在的。
再看右半部分，主要是对现在及未来的预测。我们将新文明定义为“智慧文明”。而智慧文明时代的跨文明新财富，我们认为就是NFT（Non-fungible token）。
工业文明时代，知识产权就是跨文明新财富，可这个时期似乎并不存在NFT。实质上，NFT也属于知识产权的一种。它们的根本区别在于，知识产权属于中心化授权或政府授权，而NFT分布式授权或自我授权。大家也看到了，现在市场上，普通人都可以开发NFT、交易NFT和分享NFT的价值了。正因为如此，我们认为，人类社会由工业文明时代向智慧文明时代的转型，已经开始了。
新文明为什么是智慧文明，智慧文明的跨文明新财富，又为什么是NFT。接下来，我们将对这两方面的研究逐一作出说明。
（未完待续）
