The most successful/dominant economic-political system.

Here's a link to my mono-tone robot voice reading this post instead.

It's election year, and with it, also a year of many debates. We have people from all different schools of thought, different political ideas, different stances on different issues. We have a lot of talk of capitalism, socialism, the fears of communism, the fears of corporatism and theocracy.I am here not to posit my opinion on any of the issues, nor give my opinion on anything left/right, conservative nor liberal, I am here to make a case of what creates the most successful, or dominant economical/political systems.

There's arguments on all sides of this issue, whether it be the vices or virtues of capitalism or socialism, when talking about the success of business or the detriments of the average man- Some relating the two to each other whether it be a mutual benefit, others deeming them to be opposing forces. It seems the ideas are discussed a lot, and each side has their point to make, but if you'll stay with me a minute, I would like to present my own thoughts on the matter.

First, realize that my title is meant to be read as successful and dominant being different from each other. I realize "dominant" can be defined as superior/better, but in this case I mean governing, controlling, demanding. Second, for the sake of this post, I am defining a successful economy as one that benefits the most people, keeping in mind life, liberty, and happiness - and things like financial security, and health.
With those two points in mind, let's dive into this.

So, big picture - What makes an economy successful?

I believe that the most successful economies/societies are those in which the largest amount of people desire to be a part of, regardless of their position in that society. This is the most essential part of an economy in a free nation, but also the most unreliable as it requires extreme honesty of each person, and for each person to be very self-aware of how willing they are to contribute to that society, and also unreliable as not everyone can agree. It would require a person to know what they want regardless of their position. It would require a rich businessman to be honest about what he would want if he went bankrupt, or became sick, went without food - overall faced harder times, but would also require a poor man to know what situation he would like to be in if he started his own business and found himself much better off. Would he be happy to pay the taxes that once helped/could have helped him put food on his table?

These questions, whether or not they are answered honestly or reliably, seem to give rise to our division in opinion when it comes to economic practices and political policies concerning taxes, welfare, etc. You have each person weighing in accordance to their opinion, according to what they desire to give in certain circumstances, and what they desire to receive in other circumstances. I would assert that any economic system could be successful if it were one that was based on mutual consensus.

So, we have disagreements on basic ideas, and honesty cannot be assumed within such a system. There's too many variables, and too many people that only experience ( or feel they experience ) one side. Some may feel they are poor, and will always be poor - And may not be able to give an honest opinion of how they would want to be treated when rich, and others are better off, feel secure, and are confident in their position and may not be able to be honest how they would want to live if they fell into harder times.

These fallacies within the system do make it harder to find a best scenario, but not impossible. Civil debates, honest discussion, education, political involvement, and more can overcome these faults, and a system in which represents the most people in the best way it can, can be found and implemented. Our history in the USA shows us this is true - That people can come together, discuss the things that are most important to us, and come to an agreement that ensures life, liberty, and happiness.

Unfortunately, we no longer have these honest discussions. The average is no longer educated in such matters, nor politically involved at any level above their own personal interactions with other individuals. We are no longer a people that collaborate, no longer a people who seek mutually beneficial circumstances, and because of this we have become a people who no longer work together towards life, liberty, and happiness. These unfortunate circumstances give rise to the next matter at hand: Dominant political systems.

Dominant - (Synonyms) presiding, ruling, governing, controlling, commanding, ascendant, supreme, authoritative

Within a system where willful collaboration and freedom are no longer a goal of the average person, the control is taken out of the hands of the average person, and is given to others that are outside of us. When we are seen as too indecisive or unwilling to make our own choices, others will step in and start to make the decisions for us. Debates and discussions are no longer in the interest of assuring life, liberty, and happiness as this would be counter-intuitive to dominance - debates are now about smaller issues blown up into bigger issues to assure we are always divided as a people, to assure we will never see that collaboration and mutual respect between all classes of people is possible. This creates a political system in which all of the control is in the hands of those we believe are fighting for our cause - This creates a dominant political system, both ruling/authoritative, and a very strong system. This is not a system that will go away easily, this is not a system that will collapse at the first sign of resistance against it - The manipulation and complex design of this system, which has the majority believing in it, will not be easily unraveled. However...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

We always hear that we can learn from history, that we can learn from past wars, that we can observe dictators of the past in order to identify modern circumstances in which we can avoid. I believe we can do just this - Look at the ways in which people were divided in the past, look into the reasons that people gave up their freedoms.. However, I also believe that we are facing our own circumstances. Technology, society, cities, the work place, there's so many things that are different, so we also need to learn from our own times. We also need to be able to take lessons from the past and modify them and translate them into lessons that can be applied to modern times, to be applicable to the exact problems we face today.

With all of this said, I believe we CAN move towards collaboration to find life, liberty, and happiness. We can turn our eco-political system into successful based on will and collaboration, and get away from this dominance-system which is based on division and agendas.

How this can be done? I won't leave that up to my opinion.

I'll leave it up to us.

-Deadlyhope.

Unless there is a coming together of the masses, things will never change. And the way I see it, that is something that isn't going to happen, sadly.

No, we will be here in 4 years time, if the fates allow, and we will be having the same discussion.

Only, there will be an even bigger divide between us and them in an economic sense and yet we'll still be divided.

Whoever wins, someone loses when there is a political system that allows for different political persuasions, but not too different as to affect the way of life for the elites.

Best of luck America, I hope you get the President you deserve.

There is only one way to measure success: happiness.
This says a lot about our economies and our successes. Entire systems don't change overnight, but hopefully there is space for improvements in our lives.

Our society is not based on logic, nor on happiness (which is sometimes illogical in our current paradigm). It's based on accumulating virtual value in a growing population. It's based on salaried slaves, political division (to not confuse with variety) and struggle to dominate alone above all else. It's a sort of ultimate competition where someone starts 1 inch from the win and someone else in an oceanic trench.

We have had an excess of interconnection without getting used to it, we are actually in this global world of informations since less than 10 years. The speed of history has increased, because of marketing reasons and it will take quite some time before we get used to such technology without being completely subjugated by the elites.

I do believe we won't have a chance for quite a long time to be actually free and happy as a whole. You can pursue personal happyness, but that generally involves changing the way you think, not the world around you.

And just because I'm disilluded it doesn't mean I don't agree with you, that we CAN, but it will take time, probably more than a generation or two just to start.