[AI Assisted]
Abstract
This paper situates the proposed framework of “The New Economics” (Zaar, 2025), henceforth referred to as the Zaar Doctrine, within the broader canon of economic thought. Through a comparative analysis, this paper examines how the doctrine’s core tenets – the NCH symbiosis, the redefinition of wealth, and its geopolitical stance – align with or diverge from Classical, Marxist, Keynesian, Neoliberal, and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) paradigms. The analysis finds that while the Zaar Doctrine shares certain features with these schools, such as the Marxist focus on modes of production and the neoliberal embrace of markets, it is fundamentally distinct in its centering of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as the primary factor of production and its attempt to reconcile open markets with strategic resource nationalism. The doctrine represents a novel, techno-optimistic framework for a potential post-capitalist, digitally-driven era.
Introduction
Economic doctrines evolve in response to technological shifts and geopolitical realities. The Zaar Doctrine emerges as a response to the age of AI, big data, and geopolitical fragmentation. To understand its significance, it must be evaluated against the historical theories it implicitly builds upon, challenges, or reinterprets. This analysis provides a structured comparison to illuminate the doctrine’s unique contributions and inherent tensions.
1. Redefining the Factors of Production: A Departure from Classical and Neoclassical Thought
Classical economics, as established by Adam Smith (1776) and David Ricardo (1817), defined the factors of production as land, labor, and capital. The Zaar Doctrine explicitly rejects this, arguing that wealth is no longer derived from Land Base Resources (LBR) or Human Intensive Labor (HIL).
Comparison:
The doctrine’s NCH (Nature-Capital-Humans) model can be seen as a direct evolution of these classical factors. “Nature” supplants “land,” reflecting a broader ecological consciousness. “Capital” remains. Most significantly, “Labor” is replaced by “Intelligence” (as the mind) and “Humans” (as consumers). This demotion of human labor from a factor of production to a source of demand is a radical departure, anticipating a world of full automation where the traditional labor-capital relationship is obsolete (Ford, 2015).
Contrast:
Neoclassical economics, which focuses on marginal utility and equilibrium, offers no framework for understanding the seismic shift proposed by AI. The Zaar Doctrine, by centering AI as the primary factor (AIR), moves beyond neoclassical adjustments to propose an entirely new economic structure.
2. The Source of Value and Control: A Digital Marxist Analysis?
Karl Marx (1867) argued that value is derived from exploited labor and that control over the “means of production” was the source of economic and political power.
Comparison:
The Zaar Doctrine is implicitly Marxist in its structural analysis of power. It argues that control over the new means of production – Artificial Intelligence Resources (AIR), Semiconductor and Chip Resources (SCR), and Big Data Base Resources (BDBR) – defines economic power in the NEE. This echoes Marx’s focus on the ownership of productive capital. The potential for a new, vastly powerful owner-class of “AI capital” is a central concern this doctrine raises but does not resolve.
Contrast:
Where Marx prophesized a revolution by the proletariat, Zaar envisions a symbiotic, AI-managed system that benefits a consumerist humanity. The conflict is not between labor and capital, but potentially between those who control the AI and those who do not—a new form of digital divide. The doctrine’s promise of High Quality Living (HQL) functions as a direct counter to Marxist predictions of immiseration.
3. The Role of the State: Between Neoliberalism and Strategic Keynesianism
The 20th century was defined by the debate between Keynesian interventionism and Hayekian neoliberalism.
Comparison with Neoliberalism:
The Zaar Doctrine’s advocacy for “open markets,” “open-mindedness,” and a rejection of “block mentality” aligns with the neoliberal project of globalization and free trade (Friedman, 1962).
Contrast with Neoliberalism:
It simultaneously rejects neoliberalism’s unipolar, laissez-faire ethos. The explicit call for Hoarding of National Security Resources (NSR) and Stability Intensive Industrialization (SII) advocates for a strong, interventionist state role in securing critical supply chains—a form of strategic industrial policy that neoliberalism typically opposes.
Comparison with Keynesianism:
This state intervention for securing economic stability and full employment (here, redefined as productivity continuity) is deeply Keynesian (Keynes, 1936). The focus on “procurements” and “security” of chains mirrors Keynes’s emphasis on aggregate demand and state investment to smooth economic cycles.
Contrast with Keynesianism:
The agent of stabilization is not primarily fiscal policy (government spending) but AI-driven optimization and state-backed resource security. The goal is not just full employment but uninterrupted, AI-orchestrated production.
4. Monetary Sovereignty and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
MMT argues that sovereign currency-issuing nations face no purely financial constraints on spending and can use this capacity to achieve full employment and public purpose (Kelton, 2020).
Comparison:
The doctrine’s concept of New Money Refineries Resources (NMRR) suggests a similar focus on the architecture and sovereignty of money creation. Local Currencies Trading (LCT) also aligns with MMT’s focus on the primacy of national monetary systems.
Contrast:
MMT is a framework for managing a nation’s economy within its borders. The Zaar Doctrine operates on a global, multipolar scale, concerned with the interaction of multiple sovereign systems and new digital currencies (e.g., cryptocurrencies, CBDCs) in a complex geopolitical landscape. Its focus is less on domestic employment and more on international technological and resource competition.
Conclusion:
The Zaar Doctrine as a Novel Synthesis
The Zaar Doctrine does not fit neatly into any single historical economic school. Instead, it synthesizes elements from several:
It shares Marxism’s focus on the ownership of the means of production but replaces its class conflict with techno-optimistic consumption.
It embraces Neoliberalism’s open markets but couples it with a Keynesian/mercantilist emphasis on state-backed strategic security.
It acknowledges MMT’s insights on monetary sovereignty but applies them to a fragmented, multipolar world.
Its true novelty lies in its core argument: that Artificial Intelligence Resources (AIR) have become the new central factor of production, around which all economic activity – from nature extraction to human consumption – must be reorganized. The doctrine is less a precise policy prescription and more a philosophical framework for understanding the emerging tensions of the 21st century: between automation and human purpose, between global cooperation and resource nationalism, and between technological abundance and its equitable distribution. As such, it provides a crucial, if contested, vocabulary for analyzing the future of the global economy.
References
Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic Books.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Kelton, S. (2020). The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. PublicAffairs.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Palgrave Macmillan.
Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital, Volume I.
Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. John Murray.
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
Zaar, I. (2025, October 9). *The New Economics. [Manifesto].
