Trojan Horses Strategies And Practices in Geopolitics Surrounded by Environmental Collapse

In this paper, the ancient narrative of the Trojan Horse is used to retell an interesting strategic consideration of two opposing enemies. A closer look at this strategy reveals a number of assumptions on communication and practice necessary for its successful application. First, we present the opponents we choose: They are the two camps, which currently frame a re-ordering of geopolitics. We provide a short synopsis for the history of each of them to explain where they come from and what their diverging visions for the future are. Then we proceed to sketch the current fault lines of their battles, the implicit dynamics of empirically observed tensions. We then go on to show, with a few examples, how Trojan Horse strategies have been applied in the last hundred years. With two opponents, each of them can be trying to use a Trojan Horse; thus, the title ‘Trojan Horses’. Additional drama to the geopolitical interaction is present due to the practically looming threat of a climate collapse. Their visible, but limited successes, finally lead to a conclusion in a short epilogue.

The last half-century, the long-run decline of integrated capitalism, showed an emergence of a deeply rooted contradictory development of the global political economy. It became apparent in many forms, and it was called by many names. One of its oldest ancestors was the infamous Cold War that started immediately after World War 2. The most effective buzzword marketing labels, capitalism opposing communism, are still in use today, despite the visible and declared practice of Russia and China to follow the rules of market-oriented capitalist systems. But since the last four severe global crises (financial-2009, migration-2015, pandemic- 2020, environment-2025), it cannot be denied that the strange amalgams of capitalist algorithms and despotic governance features will not be able to survive the next global - probably environment- induced - crisis1. This evolution led to stronger contrasts between long-standing enemies, now reframing as ‘Rich North’ and ‘Poor South’.

In what follows, a brief synopsis of both streams of emerging political enemies will be presented. Their differences are quickly getting more accentuated with the current geopolitical turmoil. But with the growing force of the technology-based mass manipulation, it is nevertheless getting more difficult for a human individual to correctly interpret what and how events are relevant.

To increase speed is a feature inscribed within the capitalist algorithm at all levels. If a certain amount of capital can be used more often during a year to generate at each application a positive profit, then the overall accumulated profit exploited during this year will rise at an increased speed. This was always evident, for the trade ships of early merchant capitalism as for today’s illusion-plagued one-person firm: Hurry up! It is the short-term horizon which counts. You quickly grab the profit and jump to the next deal. Competitors are there to be destroyed or to be absorbed in a merger.

Foot Notes

¹Compare (Hanappi, 2024) for a more detailed prediction.

The logic of speed leads straight to the logic of concentration. Each cycle of accumulation amplifies the gap between the strong2 and the weak. Exclusion punishes the weak, while expansion rewards the strong. The historical trajectory is thus written: from thousands of small merchants to a handful of huge corporations that control not only markets, but also communication, logistics, and even human imagination. The marketplace that once promised freedom of commerce has steadily evolved into a battleground of monopolies, where survival is determined by size, access to finance, and technological dominance.

However, monopolies do not address the system’s problems; rather, they amplify them. Once markets are dominated, the endless urge for wealth turns inward, seeking new avenues of exploitation. Politics, culture, and religion are the next targets for conquest. At this point, the capitalist company evolves into a political actor. It demands state protection, stability guarantees, and the suppression of dissenting voices. The short-term perspective of profit has fused with the long-term vision of power, resulting in regimes in which economic domination translates into political dictatorship.

Religion frequently emerges as the last means of legitimation. When profit alone cannot justify inequality, when coercion alone is unable to quell the unrest, religious language and supernatural powers are used to mask the violence of exploitation. The autocrat speaks the idiom of tradition, the monopolist funds the rituals of faith, and together they weave a cloak of inevitability around their rule. What began as a frenzied pursuit of rapid profits eventually becomes a strict control system, the capitalist algorithm reincarnated as an authoritarian, religious tyranny.

This trend is not an accident, but rather a systemic tendency. The once supposedly unifying driving force of capitalism, which connected societies via trade and finance, is now fracturing under the weight of repeated crises. When an algorithm of acceleration exceeds its own limits, it no longer produces cooperation but rather disintegration. The flood of information unleashed by modern technology only worsens this fracture: messages increase while meaning collapses, and in all of the noise, only the loud short-term signals are dominating. Deprived of orientation, individuals grasp at authority and certainty, making them easy prey for manipulation. The retreat into religious dogma and authoritarian command, therefore, represents more than just a cultural shift; it is a structural reaction to the instability unleashed by the fundamental logic of capitalism.

The outline of this hybrid order is already visible. In the United States, corporate giants control not just markets but also governmental institutions, while evangelical traditions provide a moral facade for policies that perpetuate inequality and exclusion. In Russia, oligarchic wealth has long been linked to the centralised state and the Orthodox Church. In China, massive state-capitalist corporations serve as vehicles of Party control, citing cultural harmony and national strength. Despite their variations, all of these situations show the same convergence: Monopoly capital combining with authoritarian command and religious authority to consolidate power. Each crisis, whether financial, military or ecological, is used to justify their supremacy rather than to threaten it.

At least since the revolution in the natural sciences in the 16th century, there has been a social layer of progressive intellectuals who aim at promoting the emancipation of the human species. During feudalism, the major enemy of these enlightenment efforts was the ideological carrier of the feudal system: religion, maintained by a specialised feudal staff, the church. From Galileo’s astronomy to Walrasian general market models, the belief in a world determined for eternity by a God and his representatives on earth (the pope and the feudals) was increasingly challenged. The order in the world turned out to be not only governed by physical laws that could be discovered and understood, but these laws could even be used for change, to design a world that better fits the needs of humanity. In short, the world is manmade. This is the core of the long-run thrust of emancipation. And in a very long perspective, emancipation proved to be surprisingly successful. In Europe, it ended the political governance by feudal families in World War 1, it pushed back the worst forms of religious superstition worldwide, it developed impressive improvements in general health and education of populations, and so on. The trust in the inevitable positive influence of emancipation became a deeply rooted feeling in large parts of the population in advanced countries.

In social systems that were small and manageable enough, emancipatory goals manifested themselves in the effort to introduce systems of self-governance. Such systems, dubbed with the evidently self-contradictory property ‘democratic’, allow a group of humans to construct a rule-system, which allows them to act according to these rules and, in doing so, to improve their overall fate. This construction, democracy, clearly is emancipation on the group level. It evidently implies that each member of the group is emancipated himself/herself, he or she understands democracy. Different, more or less democratic rule-sets had emerged in small cultural communities early on3. In the early 20th century, the educated circles in the developed world started to take for granted that self-governance, democracy, is possible, that it even will inevitably happen. Deep in their souls, a large part of human individuals still carries this hope today.

But from its beginning onwards, the idea of self-governance of a group had to struggle with the difficulty that the abilities and the needs of group members will - at least partially - diverge. The common advantage will, in several dimensions, differ from the personal advantage. At least, the perception of the two will allow for such differences. As cultural communities grew, the group of humans split up into classes, e.g. powerful warriors, farmers and their slaves, the clergy and the like. The organisation of self-governance became a sophisticated business. The Middle Ages in Europe are a telling example. In the capitalist mode of production, self-governance remained a fiercely contested issue, too. A firm owner rarely wants to be governed by his workers; to consider himself as a worker usually remains a story to be told in microeconomic textbooks. Democrat-ically developed proposals of employees always have to stand the test of a potential increase in profits. Democratic mechanisms at the firm level are typically slow, and those who should be involved are thought to be less able to make the relevant decisions. In capitalism, democratic decision-making has typically been transferred to the state level. The state has to assign the mechanisms with which class struggles can be solved peacefully. This is the way in which Montesquieu early on understood the superiority of democracy.

Foot Notes

²Therefore, in political economy models based solely on achieved equilibrium conditions necessarily are doomed to fail. As Schumpeter already sensed in 1911, it needs a disequilibrating element to understand capitalism (Schumpeter, 1911). He invented the social character of the ‘entrepreneur’.

³Famous examples in Athens and Rome are well-known, but many other democratic for-runners could be found all over the world.

The success of Fascism in Europe and of Stalinism in Russia was a shock for all humanists and democratic individuals. It was built on the alleged weaknesses of democratic decision-making, which Fascists and Stalinists promised to overcome. The shock of World War 2 was strong enough to lead to a worldwide surge of nominally democratic governments after 1945. The following twenty years of undisputed US hegemony in the West generally allowed for a rise of the democratic islands all around the world, not the least because of the practical adoption of John Maynard Keynes’ insight4 that an enduring stability of capitalism needs clever interference of the capitalist state. The prosperous recovery after the Great Depression marked the start of integrated capitalism, which, after the defeat of Fascism, enabled a universal pro-democratic mood in the Western hemisphere. It seemed to be possible to integrate the voices of different classes in a nation-state into a form of common political governance.

Parallel to this development within states, the disaster of the two world wars had brought about attempts to install institutions to enable peaceful democratic cooperation between nations: First, in 1920, the League of Nations, and then, in 1945, the United Nations (UN). The ascent of Fascism had shown how vulnerable a global initiative aiming at institutionalising democratic governance is. After 1945, it first looked impossible that anti-democratic movements might take hold of geopolitics again. Despite some drawbacks since the 80-ties, the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union in 1990 seemed to be a sign that global democratic governance is getting closer. But then, in the mid-90s, the USA interfered in Yugoslavia without the consent of the United Nations and brought the war back to Europe. The expansion of NATO towards the East started, and from 1999 onwards, in Russia, Vladimir Putin reinstalled a nationalist military regime built on state-capitalist economic foundations that used its rich gas and oil reserves. The new millennium quickly brought a faltering of integrated capitalism in the West, in particular in its home base, Europe, and a hardening of nationalism and police state in Russia.

But the vision of a democratic global governance is still alive. The still existing institution of the United Nations is under fire, and several naive democratic mechanisms on all levels have proved not to be working. Even the theoretical design of global democratic mechanisms did not advance as long as its basic roots were caught in the neoclassical paradigm of mainstream economics5. It might well be that better solutions have to be combinations of different democratic mechanisms tailored to the practical needs of the multifaceted cultural islands of this world. The task to get closer to this vision is worth every effort, since the alternative we experience today is the emergence of war. War between empires, local wars between their vessels, and cultural and religious wars within each country.

Foot Notes

⁴The Great Depression from 1928 to 1939 has been the stimulus for Keynes’ theoretical orientation towards short-term macroeconomic interventions (Keynes, 1936). In overcoming crude marginalism he returned to political economic theory.

⁵From Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem to the Gibbard-Sattherwaite Theorem results mainly covered what is not possible.

Global Battlefields - Fault Lines of Coercive Power and Economic Potential

It is useful to start with the current state of affairs of the global distribution of military and economic power. The raw facts are as follows.

Comparing the military expenditure of NATO to the military expenditure of the BRICS states, the picture is very clear. NATO’s military strength is more than the combined strength of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (SIPRI data). Also, the increase since 2022 is stronger in NATO than in the BRICS countries.

A comparison of population development in the two groups shows a very different picture.

The third important comparison characterising the status quo concerns GDP. This measure combines a large set of different parts of the mode of production, which allows a country’s population to transform their labour time into a monetary aggregate symbolising the output they were able to generate during a certain year.

The measurement of this aggregate is obviously difficult and depends on the existence of social institutions performing the procedures. Nevertheless, it is still the best index for aggregate economic activity at hand. The following two diagrams compare total real GDP for two country groups representative of the two major opponents in today’s geopolitical arena: Brazil-Russia-India-China- South Africa (BRICS) and USA-EU-UK-Canada. GDP is measured using purchasing power parity, and series are deflated (thus in real terms). All data uses the latest issue of the IMF database.

The central issue conveyed by this diagram is that the BRICS group has passed the Rich North in the new millennium. The drawback due to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 was heavier for the Rich North, while the pandemic crisis hit both opponents equally. The diagram makes clear why the BRICS states are demanding a say in a newly ordered geopolitics.

The comparison of the development of GDP per capita in each group shows more clearly where the unstoppable discontent of the Poor South with the recent evolution comes from. Despite the success in total GDP numbers, there are two remarkable facts:

i. The level of GDP per capita in the BRICS states is tremendously lower than in the Rich North,

ii. The difference between the two groups is still continuously growing.

Given these already highly explosive dynamics of the global political economy, Donald Trump took office as president of the USA in January 2025.

In political economy, exploitation - the mystery behind the success of capitalism - comes in two formats: The first, the power- based political format, is to take social value (land, labour time, etc.) coercively away from a weaker social entity. The second, more sophisticated economic format, uses the veil of money, credit, capital and appropriate social institutions to mask exploitation as an equilibrated exchange. With Donald Trump, the already-heating-up situation in Ukraine, where Putin encountered the advance of NATO towards the East, with a direct coercive military intervention, the first format of political economy is becoming the new normal. The Trump-Putin style of doing global political economics now is prevailing.

Therefore, the first of the two visions described in the previous section (autocratic, religious dictatorship) is gaining momentum. The second vision (Global Democratic Governance) remains a bit in the dark. Its proponents, basically the globally exploited populations, are missing a clearly defined, unique political representative. The logical candidate would be the United Nations, but as is currently only too visible, this institution, due to its primary source of finance, the USA, is under siege. Of course, the expected failures of any global capitalist dictatorship in the face of global climate collapse give hope for an unexpectedly quick emergence of a new political, revolutionary subject during the next ten years.

Despite this somewhat despairing situation, it is interesting to take a look at a strategic consideration that has antique roots and covers any war between two opponents and their visions. Some recent practical political initiatives might then appear in a new light.

The original Greek story, the Trojan Horse narrative, was meant to underline the superiority of the cleverness and strength of the Athenian heroes as compared to neighbouring Troy. In particular, the cleverness (hiding in a wooden horse) of a few of the outstanding warriors (strength!) was focused on. This cleverness was shown by correctly anticipating that the Trojans would be curious enough (a moral deficiency, which shows their missing cleverness) to drag the wooden horse inside their town.

The more abstract setting of this narrative has the following elements: Two fighting teams with an important asymmetric property: cleverness. A fortress within which the less clever team is finding shelter due to its insurmountable walls. A kind of mask (e.g., a wooden horse) that exploits a moral deficiency6 of the less clever entity and seduces it to allow for a hole in the wall. Note that this assumption presupposes that those holes (entry points) in the wall, in principle, exist. It is the visibility of these holes which is the concrete reason for the asymmetry between the two entities. One of Athena’s team sees them, none in Troya sees them7. Despite the hierarchy of knowledge in Athena’s team, they then act as a team and select the strongest warriors to form a leading spearhead. Another important role is played by visibility with respect to the exploitable moral deficiency (e.g., curiosity) of the defenders. It is via convincing visibility (e.g., of a surprisingly big horse) that the feeling of acting stupid is induced. Note that all these more abstract properties of the Trojan Horse narrative have made it applicable to a characterisation of computer viruses, too.

To apply it now to the story of the two opposing visions depicted above, we propose one interpretative narrative for each of them. In both examples, the looming environmental crisis plays a crucial role.

Global Democracy promoters are Troya

For the dictatorship promoters (DP) to get into the vision of global democracy promoters (GDP), into Troya, it is mandatory to build a vehicle (a horse), which looks interesting for their enemies. To make it attractive for them, they equip it with a self-sustaining mechanism, which seems to make it go automatically, i.e., without repeated fuelling from outside. Furthermore, it could be easily implemented, because it relies only on already prevailing, well-known market-conforming behaviour. This promises to solve one of the major problems of GDP, namely, how to convince individuals to act against their momentous, immediate desires to achieve environmentally compatible long-run survival. Voluntarism is doomed to fail, GDP have learned.

The horse that DP constructed is Global Waste Trade. The argument is that if GDP take waste trade on their agenda, average income in exploited countries as well as environmental quality in exploiting countries could be simultaneously increased. This would make all followers of GDP, all inhabitants of Troya, happy. The horse is attractive, pull it into the city. Once on Troya’s marketplace, in the night, when the diverse institutional details of the needed market mechanisms slip out of the wooden horse, the logic of these profit- maximising algorithms kills all the democratic and environmental aspirations of Troya’s inhabitants. The algorithm they dragged into their city had invaded their brains; they tore down Troya’s walls themselves and let the Athenians, the DP, achieve a total victory.

In practice, this has been clearly demonstrated. For decades, wealthier nations shipped mountains of plastic and poisonous trash to developing countries, presenting it as a mutually beneficial relationship. Africa became the world’s dumping ground, while South and Southeast Asia were overwhelmed with waste disguised as recycling markets. When China, previously the world’s largest importer of rubbish, blocked its ports in 2018 under the National Sword policy, commerce migrated to even more vulnerable countries with poorer institutions and less capacity for environmental protection. What looked to be a sensible, market-based answer was actually the systematic externalisation of environmental catastrophe.

By embracing the horse, GDP accepted the logic of short-term profit and market efficiency, undermining their own emancipatory project. What was intended to promote both democracy and ecology ultimately deepened dependency and exploitation. The example of global waste trade demonstrates how a Trojan Horse, once inside, not only disappoints but actively undermines the same objectives it promised to represent.

This narrative, of course, simplifies a more complicated situation. In practice, the global waste trade has had devastating consequences and has earned a bad reputation. The horse has been identified for what it is, but the mentality it represents, dependence on market-based quick fixes, continues to resurface in different disguises.

Trump’s Truth - the Nero of US hegemony and what follows

For the global democracy promoters, the dictatorship promoters behind Donald Trump, e.g. Peter Thiel8, are Troya. Trump is famous for his brutal, uncompromising style in which he insists that he knows everything and always tells the truth. He even named his social media network ‘Truth Social’. Recently, he changed the name of the US Department of Defence (DoD) to the Department of War. This shows that he is obsessed with telling the truth. And in this rare case, he is telling the truth: The USA is continuously leading wars to conquer - and not to defend. Trump’s style is to mix a few grains of truth with blunt, evident lies, both built on a solid basis of a media professional’s profound stupidity. The grain of truth that is allowing these strange tactics is his close attachment to military supremacy and the police. To insist on his truth is the loophole through which Trump, King of Troya, might let the Athenians, the DP, sell9 him their horse.

But what kind of horse would he take? It has to shine, make him appear strong, and be another sign of how terrific he is. Nuclear power could be that horse. It can be seen as a sign of American might, the return of unparalleled scientific superiority, and a promise of “energy independence.” For Trump, it shines with the promiseof power and legacy, which is the kind of show he loves. He would proudly drag it inside, claiming it as proof of his victory over weak liberalism and foreign reliance.

Foot Notes

⁶In this context the notion ‘moral deficiency’ needs further explanation. Here it boils down to a silly translation of a feeling of ‘not knowing’ into an action that is carried out without further examination if it is wise. ‘Moral’ is a shorthand for consulting what forerunners have proposed in similar situations - even if one does not know why one should follow their advice. ‘Moral’ thus is a substitute for knowing the common wisdom of a group.

⁷Note the role of science.

⁸Thiel is the most explicit spokesman for a religious dictatorship of one monopolistic firm governing the world.

⁹For Trump every interaction between two entities is a ‘deal’ - selling and buying. The grain of truth in this misnomer is that the capitalist algorithm indeed is based on political (coercive power) and economic (power-hiding) elements.

However, scientists, regulators, and international agreements are buried within this nuclear horse, rather than worshippers. Nuclear power depends on worldwide safety standards, international inspections, long-term planning, and cross-border cooperation. Once allowed to Troya, the horse gradually reveals a distinct logic: rule-based monitoring, scientific authority, and global coordination. The very institution Trump sees as a monument to power becomes a stage for the forces of global democratic governance. His vanity blinds him, and the gates of his stronghold open to the same performers he despises.

Of course, such a strategy has its risks. Trump does not consistently follow the rules; his impulse is to bend or disregard oversight anytime it threatens his personal dominance. In this sense, the nuclear horse is double-edged: it has democratic potential, but only if its internal systems, inspections, treaties, and safety regimes are made sabotage-resistant. Without strict and automatic safeguards, what was intended to be smuggled in cooperation may be dismantled and repurposed as an instrument of dictatorship.

Here, his bullying and undifferentiated cultural war becomes relevant. It is precisely this climate of intimidation, in which an increasing number of law enforcement and military officers are required to keep control, that makes developing a Trojan Horse strategy difficult. The leader of the DP instils fear in the majority, silencing them, yet simultaneously, he unknowingly fosters a sense of self-awareness among those he defines as losers. A horse that appeals to his vanity might gain entry, but the battle within Troya is far from over. But to construct a Trojan Horse strategy challenging Trump and his probabilistic communication strategy10 is difficult. It is illuminating to take a look back in history.

A classical Trojan Horse in Europe’s past has been the strategy of the German Social Democracy after World War 1. Contrary to Lenin’s Bolsheviks, the idea was to enter the capitalist state apparatus - the Trojan Horse - and to leave it as democratic elections let the night fall on purely capitalist goals of the state administration. Equipped with social democratic ideas and mechanisms, the infiltrated party members could then conquer Troya - the capitalist state - in a slow and peaceful manner. The unexpected Great Depression and the resulting mass unemployment showed that fascist movements, with their aggressive, IT-supported communication strategy, paired with directly oppressive secret police and cooperating industry leaders, were able to eliminate the social democratic party rather quickly. A repeated re-run of the social democratic Trojan Horse occurred after World War 2. In Europe, it resulted in the already briefly described emergence of integrated capitalism till 1978 (taking Margret Thatcher’s election as the turning point). In the USA, the role of the Democratic Party at first sight looks similar to European Social Democracy, but at closer inspection, this US Trojan Horse never had Athenian warriors for socialism inside its body. The US ruling class had learned from the interwar period; it had identified European Social Democracy as its most important asset to fight the Soviet Union in Europe during the emerging Cold War. The US Democrats at home from 1945 onwards were the main supporters of the Cold War against the Soviet Union11 and their support of their domestic labour movement was at best lukewarm. On the other hand, democracy has remained an important topic in the USA. Getting rid of its colonial status in the 18th century and of slavery in the Civil War of the 19th century were progressive steps towards the global democracy promoter’s vision. The US Constitution has since remained a highly appreciated democratic pillar in the general public of the USA. In reality, the modifications of democratic mechanisms in the domestic handling of US governance prove how easy seemingly democratic mechanisms can be misused to cement the power of a ruling class. The missing revolt of the Democratic Party against Trump’s second presidency proves that this party, in fact, is already an integral part of the ruling class in the USA.

Conclusion: Both classical run-ups of Social Democracy to use a Trojan Horse in capitalist states to transform them had only rather limited success. At the moment, the islands of democracy are smaller and more widely spread than they were half a century ago. Nationalist and neo-fascist movements are out to lead the world into wars that resemble the catastrophe of the 1930s of the last century.

Returning to the present situation also should include the possibility that, soon, the time after the erratic Mr Trump might start. Donald Trump, the emperor Nero of US hegemony12, is almost 80 years old. A president J.D. Vance will probably give the Trump agenda a religious twist. With the goal to fall back on an IT-based, religious global unification, his politics will remain as illusory as the visions of his precursor. An emerging military vassal structure - even if it can be accorded with Putin and Xi Jinping - will not be able to prevent religious wars at the population base. And the most dangerous threat remains and becomes more menacing with every year: The visible consequences of the environmental collapse. They certainly will produce motion in the world’s population at large. Will there be room for a new Trojan Horse?

As in Greek mythology, in the beginning, there is chaos. But as human history shows, there are revolutions, changes in the organisation of human societies that can overcome chaos. Every revolution needs a revolutionary subject that guides it and gives it its direction. What the GDP vision needs, evidently, is a science-based lead. In other words, we are waiting for a revolutionary subject emerging from within the centre of the global scientific community. Maybe the existing scientific community populated by managers exploring possibilities for new capitalist profit opportunities is a wooden horse with an empty inner space that allows scientific warriors to hide there?

As the examples showed, Homer’s narrative of the fall of Troy provides only limited strategic advice. Some easily found parallels should not be overdrawn. In the end, his narrative is part of a larger story, of the Odyssey, which provides many examples of the dialectics of strategic reflection. Homer’s examples do not aim at a ready-made superior strategy. There is no ‘optimal investment plan’.The two modern cases we discussed show why. Waste trade demonstrates how Global Democracy Promoters can be deceived by importing a horse that carries the logic of markets and destroys their project from within. Trump, on the other hand, illustrates how Dictatorship Promoters can be blinded by vanity, accepting a horse that seems to glorify them but instead smuggles in the warriors of science and democracy. The wooden horse is only the form. The decisive question is who hides inside, and what they do when the gates close. This is the dialectic of our time: power can be deceived in both directions, and survival depends on disguising emancipation in forms that domination mistakes for its own victory. What can be found in Homer’s sequence of adventures is a plea for superb, flexible response based on creativity. It is no coincidence that this is also the mantra of good scientific research.

None

None

1. Hanappi H (2024) Predictions and Hopes. Global Political Economy Dynamics of the Next Ten Years. In: Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 11: 8.
2. Schumpeter J (1911) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK).
3. Keynes J.M (1936) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
4. Arrow K (1950) A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare. Journal of Political Economy 58(4): 328–346.
5. Gibbard A (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica 41(4): 587–601.