Jun 262017

Capitalism versus Ecolism

Capitalism in the 21st century and earlier is controlled by the rich, and the so-called capitalists. It has become an authoritarian socio-economic system that controls national policies and principles, disregarding the ethics of democracy and comprehensive social welfare. The practices of capitalism are profits at any cost, regardless of consequences or fairness to others.

The philosophy of capitalism is private ownership of commodities and assets, treating human resources as robotic working machines that produce profits. The dominance of capitalism and global organisations in the West became very influential, able to manipulate or control political systems, and capable of trembling the economies of the most powerful nations.

In other words, capitalism allows the rich to manipulate politicians with financial contributions to their parties or by lobbying them to legislate for national projects that suit their vested interests at the expense of tax payer’s money. On some occasions, it is secret bribery for decreeing what suits the interests of the rich, even if it causes more misery to the poor. In addition, politicians manipulate the electorates with false promises, like false prophets, and misleading information to justify the feasibilities of such national projects that are supposed to be better for the public, more cost effective and better value for the tax payers’ money.

Furthermore, most people either do not care, can't be bothered, do not know the truth, or are just believers of the false prophets taking the form of a prime minister, president, party leader or an MP. There are those who know, care, and petition, but they are drop in the ocean of the political and financial power, and have no impact what so ever.

[nextpage title="next section" ]Please insert your text here![/nextpage]

Capitalists mainly support two political parties, and it does not matter which party people elect, because they can influence both. It is common in the USA, UK, Germany, France, and many other countries where capitalists are the real power behind the scenes. However, there are many similarities between the monopoly of governance and manipulation of the nation that yield the same results. The Chinese ruling system is one communist party, the Russian system is totalitarianism, others are dictatorial, and some are monarchical. While democracies have two parties that are controlled by a capitalistnd the results are the same in all of them.

When we go to a supermarket to shop freely for any of the available products, we are still under the influence of that supermarket’s products. And if all supermarkets buy from the same source and fix the prices between them, then it becomes an illusion that we are free to choose what we want at any price we can afford. The analogy means that if the source is capitalism or the controlling power, then it does not matter which leader people choose.

Capitalism forcibly snatches more from the poor to satisfy the narcissistic greed of the rich, manipulating and abusing the principles of democracy, which have become the rules of autocracy. It forever widens the gap between rich and poor, and takes true freedom and justice away from the poor. If this trend continues, there will be only handful that have monstrous wealth and the rest are below the poverty lines. The longer this trend continues the more pressure will be on people to explode and destroy it all, because they will have nothing more to give and nothing else to lose.

Ecolism, in comparison, democratises and socialises capitalism by equalising powers between the people, governors, and capitalists. The distribution of powers has a logical formula to keep the status quo of the eco-socio-economic system to sustain coexistence for the mutual benefit of all. Each authority requires the other two to maintain its existence.

In other words, the workforce needs investors to establish a business or industry, and the governors’ role is to regulate them both. But the public elects the governors and votes them out upon failure or misconduct, and the governors can do the same to failing businesses or their executives, while the investors can decide whether to remain or leave without causing harm to the workforce and the continuity of the human ecosystem.

In ecolism political system, the electorate can deselect or remove politicians from power, and the workforce can remove their chief executive officers (CEO) from their position upon failure or misconduct, with no compensation or bonuses. The politicians or government controls and enforces disciplinary actions on businesses and people for any offence or misconduct. The workforce cannot strike and cause a loss of profits for businesses, or earn money without working and being productive.

Furthermore, businesses and investors have the government’s protection for their investment and an agreed minimum margin of tax-free profits, but pay taxes on profits above the allowed tax-free threshold, in addition to paying an agreed minimum hourly rate for the required skills or training local employees in the required jobs.

If the trends of inequality, injustice, and increased poverty continue, they will reach the point of no return. The time may come for the volcano to erupt and burn its green surroundings, unless we create newer and fairer social eco-systems that are fairer for everyone on the planet.

It is already happening in countries where there is extreme totalitarianism and there is even a split in Western societies into two opposing parties: one supporting the rich to get richer and supporting their vested interests, and the other opposing party that gives more to the poor, but is not doing enough. People have already started to elect whoever is against the status quo of the establishment, or the so-called new world order. It is as we saw in the Brexit vote in the UK, in electing President Trump in the USA, and whatever will happen next in the rise of populism and the future of the European Union (EU).

Democracy versus Ecolism

What is the definition of democracy? The dictionary defines it as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people, and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. We always hear politicians talking about democracy, freedom, equality, etc.

However, although it means people are free to elect any candidate they choose, they do not have the freedom to deselect that candidate when he or she betrays their trust. Politicians talk about legislating for un-electing or removing an MP from power if the electorate chooses to do so, but they never actually do it.

There is no principle to remove a prime minister or president from power, even if he or she destroys the country’s economy, or signs a treaty surrendering the sovereignty and principles of the country to another. In my view, that is not democracy, and it does not exist in practice, but does on paper.

The free electoral system allows the electorate to choose any candidate they like. Fair enough. However, in practice, there are only two main parties and most people take sides with one or the other, even if both are corrupted or influenced by global organisations, secretive clubs, and more powerful countries or party donors. And then there is the media that always splits people's opinion between the two parties without an alternative third and fourth party. It gets worse when both parties and the media work against any rising third party that causes a threat to either of the dominant two.

The problem with the parties is the limited choice, and, whichever MP the people choose, he or she must follow the party line or the leader. Of course, there are the occasional rebels in each party who are like me and do not follow orders from a party whip, but they are not able to influence the leader in one direction or another, because they are a minority, unless they hold the balance of power.

Democracy is no longer a social system of equality allowing people to have a say in political decisions and what affects their lives. Although people can vote and select their leaders, whoever assumes the dominant power automatically becomes influenced by business conglomerates and implements policies to suit their vested interests, disregarding the consumer or the public will.

Additionally, some politicians become influenced by more powerful countries, executing their treaties, interests, and global agendas without consulting people on key issues, and most people do not know any better anyway. Even if a leader grants people the right to vote in a referendum, it tries to influence the results.

However, in some democratic countries, such as the UK, the USA and other EU countries, to protect the nation against tyranny or dominance of one political power, the legislation creates the separation of powers into three divisions a ‘trias politica principle’.

Typically, there are three governance divisions that are the legislature, executive, and judiciary, and no one division can have total control. The government in the UK is made up of the executive branch (the prime minister), the legislative branch (the House of Commons and the House of Lords) and the judiciary (the courts). However, the PM has the authority to exercise prerogative powers of the crown without consulting Parliament. At the same time, it is the party leader who has the majority and can practically do anything, unless there is a motion of no confidence by the majority.

The USA has a similar system, and the constitution splits the powers among the legislative, executive, and the judicial branches. But the president also appoints judges and officials to support him, in addition to having the backing of the majority of his party in Congress, and has some executive powers to veto a bill or law enhancement.

There is a comparable situation in the EU where the EU Council, the EU Commission, and the EU Parliament are linked in a series of relationships. But, practically, the president of the EU is not publicly elected like the president of the USA and does have some executive powers.

Similarly, in most countries, there are three governance branches, and some are better than others. However, there are always lobbyists behind the scenes influencing the ones in power. And the essential point is that manipulation and abuse of powers still exists regardless of the checks and balances. The proof of this is the injustices, inequalities, freedom limitations, and the existence of poverty in a percentage of the public.

While ecolism, in comparison, allows people to elect leaders who pass the criteria for selection that defines an ethical track record, qualifications, expertise, and abilities. But, it also allows them to remove the elected leaders from power upon any misconduct, failure to serve the national and public interests, or simply failing to deliver the promised manifesto. The citizens have the right to be consulted on any policy or changes to the socio-economic system that affects their lives. It is like a constitution that cannot be changed without a referendum and cannot be overridden by presidential executive orders.

However, the traditional voting system on paper is expensive and not suitable to use for voting on regular changes in policies. Therefore, using an electronic voting system is more cost effective and can be designed as a tamper proof system. Additionally, it can be enforced by public survey polls to guide politicians in going in the right direction and the public’s acceptance of a change.

In ecolism, petitioning to remove politicians, company CEOs, or anyone in authority is non-debatable; once it reaches the majority percentage threshold, it takes immediate effect. Additionally, upon any proof of misconduct, no one is immune from prosecution and trial. Currently, there are many people in power who are privileged, unaccountable, rich, and can afford long trials and be able to avoid prosecution in one way or another.

In ecolism, every activity is recorded and open to the public; it is true transparency and everyone, without exception, is accountable and subject to prosecution, and that is the real social democracy.

Socialism versus Ecolism

Socialism means to distribute power and wealth between the proletariat (workforce), rulers and capitalists, but it fails to determine where to draw the line between them or create a balanced formula that is accepted and implemented by them all.

However, a version of it is still in use by Scandinavian countries, as well as in most of Europe under different names, such as social welfare or benefits systems applied in one form or another, but we are not sure for how long. Many front-line services were nationalised and have gradually become privatised, and, in time, capitalism might succeed in privatising national health, education and whatever is left from housing and social benefits in Europe, and especially in the UK.

Some of Karl Marx’s theories were feasible and great, but were abused by the Russian leaders Lenin and Stalin, who converted socialism to communism and some kind of totalitarianism for the ruling communist party. However, the social benefits of the welfare system, which is still adopted today in some European countries, are the results of Karl Marx’s work.

Ecolism goes a step further and asserts that a decent living standard is a compulsory human right for the incapable, unemployed, and retired.

Ecolism has to give the investor an incentive to invest to guarantee jobs for the workforce (proletariat) and give the worker the incentive to work harder and smarter to earn more and live better. Additionally, it disciplines the investor and employee to follow mutual beneficial rules to maintain the status quo, where the rich or investor gets a reasonable return on investment while the worker gets a fair return on productivity.

The results of the investor’s profits and the workforce’s productivity generate taxes to be spent on the welfare of society, and to guarantee the sustainability of the human ecosystem.

Communism versus Ecolism

Communism, with all its variations in Russia, China, and Cuba, and the totalitarianism of North Korea have created classless societies living on the basic necessities for survival. The socio-economic system provides for free, rationed food, basic accommodation, simple clothes and good education, but forces the individual to work in factories or do specific administrative jobs.

Such a socio-economic system has made people the property of the government and is controlled by a single ruling communist party. The public act as robots programmed by the government to perform specific tasks dictated by the republic. A robot is an executer, and has no incentive or motivation to do anything beyond its program.

Nevertheless, the system has created a powerful country with industrial and nuclear power that costs much less than what it costs the USA to produce.

The communist system had ensured that the basic necessities to survive are provided to everyone, and there was no homelessness, starvation, or poverty, as there is in Africa. On the other hand, there has been no further progressive improvement of productivity to compete with the freer Western capitalistic systems. People have neither the incentive nor the motivation to do better and compete with other races on this planet.

Additionally, and, as always, the ideology was abused by the rulers and created an enormous gap in wealth and power between the working class and the ruling communist party. Eventually, the communist’s system was isolated economically and socially from the free world of capitalism. The isolation led to the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union and forced the rulers to adopt a more flexible and open socio-economic system.

A similar economic failure happened in China until the ruling communist party decided to be more open to the world, reduce bureaucracy and tight controls, and then started to compete with the West to improve its economy. This is in contrast with North Korea, where the strict public control still exists and so there are lower standards of living, global isolation, limited resources, and poverty.

The conclusion from the above is that when rulers impose more controls, increase bureaucracy, and limit the freedom of the population, then the economy and progress become limited. As a result, the economy collapses and the entire system fails. It is like a limited overdraft facility from a bank, when it is limited, the borrower will have lesser trading capability, but if the credit facility is greater, then the trading capability increases.

While communism is too restrictive, but is fairer in providing the minimum standard of living, capitalism is not restrictive, but does not guarantee a minimum standard of living, or ending poverty and homelessness. Therefore, ecolism balances the two extremes, ensures better standard of living as a minimum, encourages ambitions to the maximum, and restricts inequalities.

Religions versus Ecolism

Some religious systems have failed to adapt to the current 21st century’s socio-economic systems and integrate with the liberties of modern social convictions. And, as there is a big gap between the super-rich and the super-poor in capitalism, there is a more significant difference between the thousands-of-years-old convictions compared to the current doctrines in the advanced Western countries.

Some religions are no different than capitalism in their socio-economic systems, in the sense that some are super-rich, while most religious followers are super-poor, and there is no endeavour from the rich religious countries to narrow the wealth gap between them and the poorest worshippers in developing countries. As a simple example, compare the wealth in the Arabian Gulf with the poverty in Africa and Asia.

Some of the religions have become like commercial organisations, investing money in commodities. In the UK, St Paul’s Cathedral charges money for even entering the church, in contrast to what Jesus Christ did when he entered the temple and drove out all who were buying and selling. The temple is for prayer, not a theatre or gallery where one needs to pay an entry fee.

On the other hand, other religions have political extremists inciting hatred towards others, and brainwashes followers to kill, terrorise and cause destruction of others. The Muslim extremists for example, are not even following what their Prophet Mohammed said during the Hadith ‘talks’ for peace builders, when he said, “If someone shows no compassion to people, God will show no compassion to him.” It is even funnier and so a double standard, when Moses, more than 3,200 years ago, killed the guard of Ramses II, escaped with his followers to the desert and brought the ten commandments: one of them is “Thou shalt not kill.” Maybe he learned from his mistake, as we all are still learning. And, ironically, the Prophet Mohamed forbade alcohol, after he got drunk one night, and got up and killed his friend in anger.

However, let’s forget the past; humanity evolves all the time, and humans learn from their mistakes and find prohibitive measures to prevent unethical behaviour. The time has come to extract the moral values and the good teachings from the old religious systems to adapt them to our modern life, merge them with our socio-economic systems, and dissolve them all in one furnace to extract the new eco-socio-economic system that is more forgiving and fairer to all humans.

Most religions say that there is only one God, and yet there are many religions on the planet and they have different convictions of what God says or wants. However, let us say that God means morality, ethics, discipline, humanity, and all the right names you can give to God’s decrees. But, also, the democratic government’s principles say and want the same thing, and all humans on this planet need the same moral principles. In this case, we all worship the same God whether we belong to a religion or not. We must all worship the ‘god of ethics’ and agree on what those ethics are.

Ecolism wishes to unite the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and those following other religions under the banner of an eco-religion. Or at least to agree on universal moral values that are compatible with their religious moral ones, but have been adapted to our modern times and principles without conflicting with international human rights and ethics.

Religions do not have to abandon the ethical teachings of their prophets as long as they are happy with it and translate the old teachings to our modern life without imposing their rules on others. No matter what differences there are among various religions and traditions, there are always some common moral grounds to bring them together living under the same banner.

Ecolism does not interfere in the doctrines of religions or any other socio-economic systems, but avoids their negative influences and learns from their failures to create a better eco-socio-economic system. Ecolism hopes that a new ethical eco-socio-economic system will supersedes the old ones and will lead by example for future generations to come together and integrate into one social system that ensures human rights, liberties, equality, justice, peace, and harmony for all humankind.

Each person’s eco-freedom ends when the eco-freedom of others begins. Freedom is a universal consensus that comes with the responsibility for not harming yourself or others, physically, financially, morally, emotionally, religiously, or influentially. If a religion, or a principle and rules conflict with the principles of eco-freedom, then that influence should be avoided.

Profile photo of Henry Gilbert[suffusion-the-author display='description']

 Leave a Reply

Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.
Skip to toolbar