So, in my last post I was writing about paranoid illuminati theories & the realistic events & situations which back them up. I would also like to make it clear that the capitalist political system does threaten certain social systems which are necessary for our progression as a species.
From what I can gather out of various sources it seems that most parties responsible for economies which are in the top 30 or so countries are highly subject to "economic blackmail". This happens because an economy (of a country) becomes so large it depends largely on corporate enterprises in order to sustain its growth which is only logical in a political system which depends largely on the acquisition of capita.
But this way of regulating things (or lack of really) has its downfalls. Because of the large dependence on corporate interaction within an economy, governments become subjected more & more to the policy of those companies which dominate the economy in their countries. An example of this is the recent public outrage at an invitation by one MP to privately meet with David Cameron to discuss policy. This particular example leads me to question how well is the operation run. Is it a meticulously planned public relations manipulation as some would have us believe? Or is this really an example of a slip up. Deliberate or not, the fact is that someone responsible for making decisions about the U.K. (be it governmental or in the private sector) essentially is in favour of corporatocratic government. So we see that the logical outcome of capitalism is corporatocracy. Much in the same way that the flaws of communism lead to a dictatorship or totalitarian society. I find it almost mathematical the way in which political systems when enlarged breakdown. Of course this is the nature of adaptation. One person (or in this case a select few) will come along with a set of ideas & the ideas are guaranteed to not be perfect, so then it simply takes another set of people to analyze & modify them. This is the position we find ourselves in now as a global society.
I find that often when I come across material discussing this stuff, they're often inconclusive & I'm left with a feeling of helplessness & depression for humanity. This is possibly a good thing because I now feel driven to list a couple of ideas of solutions. So let's for just a minute take our eyes of what's happening now (only briefly mind) & look into the proposed future of political systems.
The Technocratic Approach
So, some people (mainly engineers) think that the best way to run things would be to replace the control of the corporations & fill the government with engineers & scientists instead. I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but what would be good about this type of government would be that the decision makers would be very well educated. That would mean they would be less likely to make terrible decisions. But as most of you have probably noticed our governmental leaders most of them already have been to very high quality places of education. It doesn't seem to help them not be absolute dickheads. So the logic of a highly educated elite making the decisions is just another duff argument, the fact that they would have had a scientific or engineering education makes no difference. Being a scientist doesn't imply morality or social understanding.
The "Zeitgeist" Solution
Because the Zeitgeist movement, it's affiliated films & pages seem to be reluctant to promote a political allegiance (as if that would be a bad thing) it's hard to ascertain what they stand for. But, from what I can gather the Zeitgeist movement promotes a slightly different take on technocracy whereby they don't specifically want scientific leaders they just want a scientifically regulated society. Alternatively to the technocratic approach "a scientifically regulated society" allows social science experts to be in the ruling elite. This is a little better than just scientists having control over everything. It allows for what experts refer to in Plato's "Republic" as the principle of specialisation. In this context I'm (maybe incorrectly) using it to describe how in this proposed system experts have control within their respective fields. Of course this still allows for a form of absolute control. Highly specialised absolute control but absolute control nonetheless.
This solution addresses the specific problem of the way that money is regulated in this country. I'm specifically referring to the monetary reforms as proposed by the Positive Money Campaign. Their argument is highly logical, I seriously suggest you go watch some of their video's as they are very educational. They are addressing the inability of the government to regulate the creation of money. They attempt to solve it by getting a law passed which means that bankers cannot simply create money. It's a very complex problem so it's worth looking up. Although it is a good cause it is not the end of the game. I believe the campaign is a small step towards to addressing much broader issues.
The Socialist Solution
I'm sure you've all heard of socialism. Most often socialism is referred to in connection to communism. For instance Karl Marx famously said that socialism was simply a transitional period between society as we know it. I find communism is an idealistic form of political philosophy but I disagree with it because it requires that same type of absolute control which tends to be the downfall of most political systems. Whereas socialism is a much more moderate form of the political ideals I like out of communism, but presented in a much more handleable format. Some would argue that in a socialist state having a centralised government controlling the distribution is in itself a form of absolute control. I would agree with that but at least in this model the centralised authority have a pre-arranged duty to provide for the people. But as we know in this country that isn't enough to ensure unbiased regulation.
Overall it seems the solutions I have provided are inconclusive to solving all our problems. They're either not broad enough or not ensuring of regard to the public. I think a sensible formula for our development as a society is progress in very much the same way that we've always done. & I don't mean let's continue with out capitalised "democracy"(/corporatocracy). I mean every socio-political norm is subject to the analysis of every free mind. So the health of our society is dependent on how much free thought is allowed & how much our regulators allow themselves to be questioned. Because the only way to prove that your idea is a strong one is to subject it to a great deal of analysis. I think the Socratic notion of questioning everything applies here.
Just to clarify I advocate none of the political solutions listed above in whole (except the monetary reform one).