NEO-INDUSTRIAL MODEL OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
In the process of the "digital", neo-industrial transformation of production, the information society gradually creates an adequate production base for itself. This objectively requires a new view of the information society. In the literature, an information society is considered a society in which the majority of workers are engaged in the production, storage, processing and use of information. Thus, this concept is associated with the predominance of information employment. However, this does not necessarily mean a reduction in the volume of material and, especially, industrial production.
Meanwhile, in the literature, it has become generally accepted to actually identify the information and post-industrial society. But you can also go another categorical way - to combine the concept of the information society with the concept of the neo-industrial transformation of production. The objective basis of such a categorical synthesis is the historical process of "digital" transformation, which leads to a society that is simultaneously informational and neo-industrial, namely informational by the criterion of employment and neo-industrial by its production base, which provides for the complex automation of production. Thus, the neo-industrial model of the information society is a mature stage of development of the information society, which, unlike the post-industrial stage of its development, is based on an adequate production base in the form of complex automated production. At the early, post-industrial stage of its development, the information society did not yet have and, it must be said, does not yet have such a neo-industrial production base. It is satisfied mainly with the remnants of the production base that is inherited from the classical industrial stage of development and is not adequate to the internal nature of the information society. Globalization and deindustrialization of the developed economy undermine the industrial production base of the information society. Thus, the old production base is destroyed, which is not adequate to its own immanent nature. However, the main problem is that this destruction of the "old" industrial base is not immediately accompanied by the formation of a new, neo-industrial production base, adequate to the immanent nature of the information society.
This historical gap in time is formed as a result of the contradiction between globalization and automation of production. The main subjects of globalization - TNCs - are profitable to invest money directly in working capital, that is, primarily, in the relatively low wages of workers in countries with developing markets. Due to the rapid return, this is more profitable for large corporations than investing money in fixed capital to automate production at home. Therefore, globalization slows down the automation of production, and this is manifested in the tendency to fall in the average world level of the organic structure of capital, which is statistically measured by the "capital-labor" ratio. It is precisely because of this contradiction between globalization and automation that the United States is by no means the leader in automation of production today. In terms of the number of industrial robots per 10,000 employees, it is in 8th place. On the contrary, in the newly industrialized countries of East Asia, and primarily in South Korea, the process of neo-industrial transformation is already in full swing. South Korea is today the world record holder in the number of industrial robots per 10,000 employees in industry, and in this respect it is ahead of even Japan, which produces the bulk of industrial robots. South Korea has achieved the highest level of industrial robotization in the world to date (531 robots per 10,000 employees in industry). Singapore is in second place - 398, Japan is in third - 305. The most "robotized" European country is Germany, with a level of 301 robots. At the same time, in the USA, only 176 robots are installed per 10 thousand employed in industry. For comparison: this is less than in Taiwan, where 190 robots per 10 thousand employed in industry.
The consequences of the inhibiting effect of globalization on the process of robotization of production are still felt and are manifested in the relative lag of the USA from the new industrial countries of Asia. Thus, on the one hand, the deindustrialization of the economy of highly developed countries in the process of globalization undermines their "old" industrial production base, and, on the other hand, it inhibits the formation of a new, neo-industrial production base adequate to a mature information society.
This leads to a specific feature of the neo-industrial transformation of production: if the post-industrial transformation and the transition of Western countries to the post-industrial model of the information society occurred spontaneously, then the transition to the neo-industrial model of the information society objectively requires conscious management. If the post-industrial model was formed by itself, spontaneously, without any special efforts from the state, then the neo-industrial model of the information society, on the contrary, must be created consciously. Modern Western experience p shows that spontaneously this transformation process occurs too slowly, and this is manifested in low growth rates, which have been called the "new normality". As a result, a paradoxical situation arises when the "digital" technological revolution is accompanied by low growth rates of production. This indicates, on the one hand, the inadequacy of the spontaneous method of "digital" transformation of production and the need to transition to a model of managed neo-industrial transformation. Information society, new industrial model, automation, managed digital transformation.