I already know from experience and understanding of principles of energetic dynamics that everything works best when balance is present. Our current world economic situation is hugely imbalanced, with the vast majority of 'wealth' being controlled by a tiny fraction of our world - with no benefit for most of us. Do forms of Capitalism or even Communism hold the answer or are they part of the problem? I am going to present some key principles here that need to be understood to resolve this.
Every economic system produces examples of people who have no problem with it - the real test we must apply to such systems must come from a holistic perspective and examine how the system affects the whole of humanity in as many ways as possible. This holistic approach is absolutely, always the most complete way to assess a situation, whether it is financial, anatomical or relating to any other aspect of a system. Holistic analysis ignores nothing (knowingly) and it is this thoroughness which is part of why most people avoid this level of enquiry at all costs. It is common for deep enquiry to find good reason to dispose with ALL prevailing theories and ideologies when they are found to all fail us and this is too challenging for many people, for whom denial of reality and continuation of futile resistance to their chosen ideological opponents seems like the only option.
We must go beyond the stuck state of limiting beliefs that say that the perceived 'need' to fight and struggle is more important and necessary than the will to change and improve.
Definitions
There's no value in attempting to discuss and explore a subject if we don't know the exact definitions for the terms we are exploring. Many people hold different ideas about what capitalism, communism and other systems actually are - so I will start by stating the definitions that I personally work with and why.
If we are to examine these concepts in an analytical way, it is important to consider everything, but at the same time aim to distil everything down to it's fundamental essence.
Capitalism
A common dictionary definition for 'Capitalism' is:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
I have no problem with this definition as it adequately describes what I understand Capitalism to be, while remaining open enough to allow for a version of capitalism that is not controlled or dominated by government. The non state control of capitalism is an aspect that anarcho-capitalists typically say is an absolute requirement for real capitalism and since the failings of capitalism are typically attributed to state control and not to capitalism itself, this is very relevant to any analysis.
Communism
Definitions for 'Communism' from the same dictionary source (Wordnik):
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
n.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
n.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
As we can see, Communism is a little less clear cut, due to it's lower level of prevalence on the planet and thus less clarity about what aspects of it can work and which cannot (unlike capitalism, which has been tried and tested in various ways and so we can refine the definition of it quite easily). The definitions of Communism are interestingly divided along similar lines to Capitalism, in that the main variation in the theme is whether or not there is state control of the system.
I think the first definition of Communism here is the clearest one to work with, although clearly we are going to be having to address some complex issues if we are ever going to find a practical version of it - since 'collective ownership' appears to be paradoxical as 'ownership' implies 'control over' which itself implies a limited access that seems impossible to be able to exist alongside 'collective access'.
'Traditional' Capitalism vs. 'Traditional' Communism
The last 70 years+ have seen many ideological wars, resulting in millions of people being killed, tortured and abused across the planet, with much of that having been caused by the stirring up of people into a paradigm of 'capitalism vs. communism'. I intend to create peace to the best of my ability and so it is important that I can help defuse major conflicts and this is clearly one of them.
First of all, we clearly have a completely opposing pair of ideologies here (on the surface), since one is advocating that everyone has equal access to every 'thing' and the other is advocating that everyone has the right to totally restrict access to 'things' according to some kind of set of rules or guidelines. Neither of the overviews of these approaches gives a clear cut method for achieving the aims, since in both cases we are dealing with the individual will of millions of different and unique people, each with their own needs and desires. What if I want the same thing you do?
Communism, in practise - with state intervention/control - typically just takes a kind of 'parental' role and says "Neither of you get it, the state takes it and will do with it as it pleases, with the best intentions to help everyone" - which, as you might expect, simply results in the people controlling the state abusing their position, taking the most and recreating exactly the problems within capitalist nations that they claimed to be 'fixing'. Proponents of Communism often say "Soviet Russia was not real communism" and they are are correct, since clearly that regime was not being run with the best interests of everyone in mind - though at the same time, we don't have a wealth of examples to draw on to see how well communist ideals might work without such top-down control and whether or not it can even work at all.
Capitalism, in practise, lends itself to supporting individuals and groups in taking a 'parental' role, in the sense that those with the most 'wealth' and 'title' get to determine what other people can and cannot do with resources. On the macro level and from the perspective of people who are not near the top of the artificial power pyramids, this is really much the same as communist state control, since the power to act without hindrance is not equally distributed. While it can be successfully argued that capitalist methods of 'spreading the wealth' are preferable to total top-down domination from a communist regime, it is also fair to say that real communism (purely defined) would not actually have such a top-down control system in place, so we are comparing apples with oranges. Our current capitalist governments typically get bought off by 'big capitalists' and so we are stuck with current capitalist paradigms really being very, very close to soviet style communist regimes, but with more potential for non-violent change (and with less grey raincoats).
It is clear to me that if we desire real balance and a way of life where everyone's free will is being respected, any form of 'state control' is a non-starter and it is clear that 'big government' always causes a loss of free will and thus always renders the system inadequate and causes failure. The reason for this is very, very simple - if someone determines what others can and cannot do, then they are overpowering free will and when free will is limited, we lose power and the ability to 'fend for ourselves'. Loss of free will IS the root of the problems in ALL human cultures.
Fixing Poverty
One of the claims often made in support of capitalism is that it has 'lifted millions from poverty' - however, I see failings in this claim. Equally, the basic idea behind communism is that it is intended to prevent poverty. It could be said that this objective is the basic aim of any economic system.
Poverty:
The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.
n.
Deficiency in amount; scantiness: "the poverty of feeling that reduced her soul” ( Scott Turow).
n.
Unproductiveness; infertility: the poverty of the soil.
There are numerous forms of wealth on Earth and they are quite different, yet share common threads. The basic idea is that poverty is a state of not having enough, a state of lack. Lack of abundance could originate in a lack of health, a lack of understanding, a lack of right intention, a lack of balance or a lack of freedom. All of these can be resolved through a process that begins internally within individuals, but if they are born into a reality that appears to heavily control them and is intimidating, then they are likely going to remain stuck. Again, it is the overpowering of free will that is the core problem here and not any particular economic system. Many economic systems could result in poverty.
You could look at capitalist America and say "look at all the abundance of 'things' and products, there is a great wealth here" and yet, a large proportion of American people have almost no resources or material wealth at all. You could also look at the high murder levels, massive criminal enterprises, illegal wars and other forms of corruption and say "The people here are seriously lacking spiritual wealth, they are poor in spirit". Obviously, these are generalisations that can never be fully accurate, but they point to real patterns. It is never enough to look at the success stories from a culture if we are to assess the overall success of the economic system being used, we must look at everyone to see how the system affects everyone as a whole - failure to do this would allow for us to examine a crowned prince and his luxury and then claim his way is the best, while completely denying the reality of a million slaves that are dominated to allow him that position.
Clearly, to fully eradicate poverty means MUCH more than just a state of being where everyone 'has things' - it refers also to a warmth of soul/spirit and thus a community willing to share and support one another. Sadly, this warm way WAS the way of life that was practised by some of the tribes of America prior to their extermination by European invaders who claimed they were 'from the the devil' while they raped and pillaged their way across America "in God's name". This religious evil is an example of spiritual poverty dressed up as greatness.
When it is the capitalist paradigm that defines 'poverty' and limits it's meaning to refer only to "the absence of material wealth" then when compared to communist examples (which were not pure communism) it is easy to see that capitalism 'wins'. However, when we look more holistically, the situation changes drastically.
Capitalism Causes Poverty?
Since capitalism fundamentally promotes the building of power structures and empires - which are literally fuelled by inequality, such that those with 'more' can direct the actions of those with 'less' - there is an inherent poverty of spirit present, whereby a loss of will among those with less material 'wealth' will result in ill feelings and a wealth gap. There is, as far as I am aware, no way around this - it is built in to the capitalist ideology. If everyone has equal ability to act on their own will, then they must also have access to at least a fair amount of resources and this is impossible when they are being born into a system where literally EVERYTHING is already 'owned' by someone and usually that someone is one of the very small number of people who have inherited massive wealth (which may or may not have been acquired honestly).
Since capitalism inherently does nothing to prevent evil from amassing wealth and controlling everyone else, there is an absolute requirement for those choosing capitalism to also choose absolute compassion, wisdom and intent for balance - otherwise evil will likely prevail in numerous forms.
Check out the following, short video on wealth inequality in America for valuable insights:
Is Corporatism Inevitable Within Capitalism?
It's fine to say that real capitalism helps people, but where is an example of real capitalism in practice? If we look at national levels we will typically see what some call 'corporatism' (Corporate domination of society) and many supporters of capitalism try to distance themselves from what I see as failings of capitalism by blaming it on corporate domination, without referencing the fact that corporate domination is an inevitable outcome of capitalism! When corporations exist beyond the lifespan of humans and can be used to act as if they are humans and when the framework they operate in allows them to direct resources and thus people, there is no other possible outcome than that some WILL dominate and be in a position to overpower almost everything.
If we try to fix capitalism by removing corporatism, we are left only with the options of heavy state control - which doesn't work - or with removing corporations as an entity that exceed the capacities of individual humans. In principle that may help, but then we will be faced with many voices claiming that this violates their right to free association and free trade. I am not aware of any examples of this being done in practise and so just like 'pure communism' I assert that the ideal 'pure capitalism' that capitalist supporters hold up as being ideal, also doesn't really exist. It's fine to support an idea that hasn't ever been proven to work or exist, but please don't claim that you know you are right and that others are wrong when you don't even have any evidence for your specific claim.
I see capitalism in it's current form and in all related forms I am aware of as causing poverty and of being born of a lack of deep awareness of how to work with the energies of life. It is a 'best attempt' at solving complex problems of resource sharing, but I think we can do better.
Voluntarism?
If 'Capitalism' is all about acquiring 'Capital' from which to build from and 'Communism' is all about working as a community and they both fail for a similar reason - the absence of intent to respect balance and to truly help each other voluntarily, then maybe Voluntarism is the answer?
Voluntarism is defined in the same dictionary as:
The use of or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end.
n.
A theory or doctrine that regards the will as the fundamental principle of the individual or of the universe.
This is much closer to what is necessary now to achieve real balance. Respect for will is an absolute requirement and is, in truth, what has been missing on Earth for aeons. There are real world examples of voluntarism in action, such as the Ubuntu Movement that started out of South Africa and that has now spread to South America and beyond. The idea being that when people are given the OPTION of investing their time and resources into working for their friends, community and family in a shared way that is honestly run, they often jump at the chance and things can work out well for all.
The most common question here is along the lines of "but what about the people who don't participate? how do they get along?". The ubuntu movement essentially states that by teamwork we are far more efficient than operating as disconnected individuals and under the effects of corrupt corporate agendas, so one aspect is that the abundance levels of food and other necessities sky rockets under an organised, yet voluntary way of life that respects free will. So some allowances can be made automatically for selling excess products for exchange with those who are more algined with 'pure capitalism'. Voluntarism, as described by most proponents I have encountered, does not prohibit ownership, it is a kind of meeting in the middle, between communist ideals and pure capitalism and meeting in the middle is exactly what balance is about. However, I will add that I am not sure ownership is compatible with Voluntarism, since by claiming to own a piece of land, you are basically 'volunteering' on behalf of everyone else that they agree with you owning it. What if half the community doesn't want you to own a piece of land, how is it voluntary that you get to own it? I think this approach retains the fundamental imbalance inherent with capitalism, since it basically IS capitalism under another name - with different intent.
Ultimately, only a respect for free will can bring balance and can facilitate access to the necessary resources for life by all those involved, so in one way or another those who thrive will be those who do FULLY respect free will. Control of others always results in a loss of abundance at some level overall since being controlled equates to a loss of passion and free will and that results in a loss of productivity overall.
The main missing factor in the core definition of voluntarism is that it does not inherently address the many disconnections that may arise in societies and the many conflicts and disputes. In truth, none of the ideologies described here inherently address the mechanics of peace that are required for communities to thrive. State controlled versions of capitalism and communism typically have resorted to using court systems which are typically corrupt and imbalanced. Proponents of non-state controlled capitalism that I have spoken to basically say that if someone is seriously working against the community then the community will just murder them.. This is not an adequate solution and is in no way a selling point for such an ideology. I am not 100% clear what exactly the solution to these issues is amongst non-state controlled communist thinkers, if they have a solution that is not just 'courts' - however, that is mainly because I have never researched their position deeply enough due to me never hearing enough logic in their ideas to make me feel it was worthwhile. You are welcome to advise me on what I might have missed!
Heartism!
The energy of creation that formed this universe provides a bounty that is enough for the people who work in harmony with it - so key to lasting peace is to understand universal principles and thus also how to thrive in life generally.
Correctly understanding life itself means that we would survive beyond the Earth and also know how to work with Earth too. Ending poverty is ensuring there is enough for all - so we need to understand how to CREATE optimally (in a general sense) to solve this problem and no amount of regulation or control will achieve that or even attempts to address the challenge.
Psychology can be warped away from balance and towards nonsense - in a way that only benefits empire builders and heartless controllers - and I spend considerable time exposing this. Once people stop working with natural energies and stray from their natural state as they attempt to get more and more 'stuff' for a variety of reasons (generally all surrounding beliefs in the need to compete/win rather than create and share) - they lose the ability to access their own abundance and this is where their problems often begin.
'Heartism' is the way that originates in the heart of individuals. The heart thinks and also feels - it has the capacity to reach far beyond the limits of the strictly mental layers of self and can understand reality in ways that are logical, yet which typically take into account vast amounts of information that the mental self doesn't even understand yet. In short, the heart is a bridge between the consciously understood and the unconscious 'mysteries' of the universe that we need to understand if we are to thrive. The heart will slow the mind down to ensure it doesn't overlook fine points and this results in far more reliable decisions and actions, that truly can benefit the whole of Earth and all of us. The challenge is that those who are not yet heart-centered will not typically stay present long enough to learn the benefits of this approach and since the benefits and methods extend beyond math formulas, their mental over-reliance tends to deny that this approach can even exist. Ending denial is an absolute requirement for this path.
Heartism can provide us with an alternative to binary left/right (fictionally limited) paradigms. For example, the heart understands that there are more than two options in most situations and that conflicts arise due to polarisation into 'one camp or another' which will be most effectively resolved by recognising the polarisation itself to be a problem and taking steps to find the balance points needed to end the divisions; rather than sitting in one 'camp' trying to 'win'. This need not result in loss of anything at all. Creativity and imagination can often provide solutions which are invisible to those who are sat in one 'camp'.
Heartism & Property
In my understanding, the entire concept of property rights has the potential to destroy all life on Earth! Just saying this is often enough to have capitalist supporters reaching for their handguns in a hysteria of projection, claiming that I must be a 'Communist', when I am not. I will explain..
All it takes for us to totally destroy the planet, in a world of property rights and competition, is for those with the most (alleged) claim to the property and resources to themselves be ignorant of how to work within universal principles of balance and the fundamental nature. If those with the most ability to direct the energy of the planet are in total disregard of the planet and the mechanics of the energies involved then they can and will literally end all life here.
Property rights in and of themselves are not 'bad', but we MUST look at the WHOLE and not just our own small arenas if we are to understand the REAL effect of our choices and ideologies in the long term. It is not enough to simply say 'This idea works for me right now, therefore it is the best'.
When a dominating/controlling force is present that can destroy us all, it is the duty of all humans to find remedy and prevent the problem occurring again. With the combining of nuclear weapons and massive imbalance dominated by corporations and government we ARE at that point already. A study of the micro life on our soils will show clearly how, for example, our capitalist structure of 'commerce' (mixed in with heartless mind control) has resulted in almost total destruction of our ability to grow healthy food as farmers are stuck in an endless loop of buying demineralising, synthetic 'fertilisers' from corporations in an attempt to power up the soil that is only depowered as a result of failing to work with it in the correct way. This was not the result of 'state control', rather it is the continued result of wealthy capitalists without heart balance doing everything they can do to influence behaviour patterns in ways that increase their own financial and capital gains. A balanced society would already be aware, for example, that we can use rockdust and other natural approaches to enlivening the soil and producing much higher quality crops - but the domination of thinking in society, through media outlets and education regimes dictated in part by the empire builders has meant that few are ever exposed to these real solutions that would result in less 'profits' for the corporations. Generally speaking, balanced, harmonious life does not create huge, relative 'profit' since it actually creates such abundance that everyone benefits inherently - with no sense of competition involved.
If someone lays claim to the majority of something due to their own justifications such as 'hard work' or 'paperwork' - then there is nothing to stop them withholding the bounty of the Earth from everyone else and that is what is happening today. The ones who suffer the most have little voice and are 'conveniently' 'skipped over' even by many of those outwardly claiming righteous compassion. When we fail to listen to our heart and do not allow our heart to guide our thinking, we will ALWAYS act heartlessly (by definition) and it is the heartlessness that is at the core of our problems.
The balance here, with regards property rights, is that people NEED their own space and so we need to be able to find solutions that don't resolve to 'whoever has the most guns wins', but that at the same time also allow for free movement and good will between people as they explore their home planet freely.
My heart shows me that the Capitalist model we have see in practise so far is fundamentally psychopathic in that it relies on denial of free will of some in the name of the expansive ideas of others. A fully balanced version of capitalism could exist but only if it employs voluntarist principles that actually take it somewhat away from pure capitalism. Most psychopathically injured people don't understand what psychopathy has done to them and their thinking, which means that many supporters of this ideology have not really delved deeply enough into the situation and their own involvement to realise the shortcomings.
Some have claimed that Capitalism is the only way to have respect for individual needs and that the problems with Capitalism today stem from a lack of respect and not from failings in Capitalism itself. We would need a mechanism to essentially 'reset' all ownership in order to test their claim and try out 'respectful capitalism' to cancel out all the 'lack of respect' that has come before. If that were to happen, given the current level of imbalance on the planet and heartlessness, there would be likely to be a huge increase in 'disrespect' in the form of conflict and argument as people vie to take control of land and resources following the 'reset'. Any ideal form of economic system that involves capitalism REQUIRES an evolution of consciousness and heart first and foremost. There is no financial or economic policy that can ever improve life while what is truly needed is an increase of consciousness and compassion.
The ultimate extension of such an evolution of consciousness and heart is one which fully respects free will and free movement, which itself does not allow for artificial borders - which itself negates the foundation stone of capitalism, property rights. If I 'own' a fruit farm and people want or even need to cross it for some reason (or to grab some fruit to eat) then universal free will principles say that I must allow them to - with the caveat that they should not over-ride my will or the will of others by destroying the land/plants or taking more than is needed. But this then renders the absolute idea of property rights as unworkable - however, I feel that this is actually a GOOD thing. To fully understand this means understanding WHAT LIFE IS and where we come from.
A Strong Tree Must Have Strong Roots
Everything that exists is a oneness - which means that I am literally one with the Earth and so are you. We are not random pieces of meat wandering around on a rock by chance. When we understand our fundamental unity, it seems absurd to then try to control where some 'parts of us' go on our world. We can waste so much energy and cause so much HEART ache trying to control people that we get lost in fear and anger that prevents us from finding alternatives. That is where we are collectively at right now and it is not a pretty sight.
In a world where everything can be 'owned' (taken) by those with the most (alleged) right through 'money' - an entire agenda opens up whereby those who seek power over others will do whatever it takes to deceive and manipulate others into taking the free space and resources that are rightfully to be shared by all of Earth. Part of enjoying real and felt balance is ensuring that those who are seriously unbalanced cannot perpetuate their imbalance and this can only be done by each of us realising the issues involved and taking steps to make sure we don't facilitate imbalance and actively take steps to increase real balance. We do this first and foremost by learning to FEEL and KNOW who we are and how we are on Earth.
When we know our own roots and stop 'theorising' and 'guessing' / 'assuming' about our origins, we feel much more at peace, have no desire to overpower others and will inherently respect other life forms' free will since we know we are ultimately all one.
It might be noticeable by now that 'Heartism' isn't about flag waving or policies, so much as it is about a STATE OF BEING that responds to the real needs of the moment and adapts to make the best of whatever we encounter - it is the opposite of rigid paradigms and is adaptable to all conditions except denial.
Conclusion
Obviously I could just keep writing here and go on for hundreds of pages, but in the absence of me having weeks to write this, I think this puts forward enough points to give pause for thought and to trigger insightful comment and ideas from you, dear reader!
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
for Steem Witness!
View My Witness Application Here