I have given myself the task of superficially studying the model of social organization that currently prevails over the countries of the Western world. Generally, when you look at the past, feudalism or any other system of government of yesteryear, we can appreciate a kind of pyramid that separates royalty, aristocracy, clergy and merchants, and in turn, separates the vassals of the slaves.
However, at present, although I was able to find some models that try to explain the form of social organization, I think they are very simple and don't really represent the power structure that governs our nations.
In this way, I decided to describe the current social structure based on the knowledge I have gained about the way in which some things work.
In such a way that my starting point is to identify which are the institutions that hold power and know where such power comes from.
Karl Marx said that social organization was governed by an infrastructure and a superstructure. He argued that the means of production and the relationship that individuals had with them was the basis of social organization, and that based on these material factors the superstructure was dictated, that is, religion, ideology, education and that the entire structure of the State depended on material conditions. That is, in essence, the historical materialism.
Well, I have taken part of the Marxist theory and I have turned it around, because I believe that history has shown us that it is the beliefs of the people that determine the material conditions and not the other way around. Although it is possible that material conditions may represent an influential percentage of the circumstances, I don't consider that this has been the most important historical factor.
According to the pyramid that I propose, the people are the base, because they are the ones who work to satisfy the needs of all, and it is they who are governed by those at the top.
Just above is the government, it is important to note that this government is not the state, the government is only the set of people in public office, such as the parliament, the presidency, or the supreme court of justice, and although theoretically speaking they should be the ones who conform the totality of the State, in practice it is not like that, the politicians are only the most visible face of the true State, an organism that at present is much bigger than in any past time.
Unlike feudalism or systems of previous governments, the current system seems to have a kind of state in the shadows, could have a bit of conspiracy theory, but according to what I have seen, and as I have said in previous publications, the State are the set of people who hold power, and the key word is "people", because I argue that power does not fall on the institutions, or the politicians who control them, but in external hands, in the hands of invisible men.
These are the hands of the people who really hold power, the corporatocracy, an organization of people with interests to dominate over the population. The corporatocracy is represented by the owners of the large media, large companies and multinational industries, guided by the global financial system that is at the head of this great structure with global networks.
It may interest you: Democracy or Corporatocracy?
This group of individuals uses the democratic systems of political parties and the advantages that these false systems grant them, to replace at will those who don't align with their interests. And they use persuasion, extortion, and if necessary, the force to appease dissent.
In turn, all these individuals serve, unknowingly, a purpose greater than themselves, and that is the same purpose served by all members of this society organized under the current principles. Who really governs, in all cases, is capital. The ideas and beliefs of the people are the ones that mark the relations of power, it has always been that way. Then, if materialism becomes the supreme belief of the people, the material rules over their mind.
The top of the pyramid represents the predominant belief, it is the idea that rules over man, here is the cause of all religious and ideological conflicts that arise in history. Who dominates the field of beliefs dominates the social structure.
In the Ancien Regime one could see the degree of development that a civilization had because of its level of cultural or spiritual wealth, large cathedrals were built due religion and Christianity were the predominant idea that governed society and people.
However, in the modern world, totally devoted to materialism, we measure the level of development of a nation by the size of its GDP, the distribution of wealth, the rate of inflation and the quality of material life. Thus, the large constructions refer to the industry and the business world. For example, the One World Trade Center, the largest building in the Western world, along with the rest of the corporate buildings.
A material world where the idea of utility defeats the idea of beauty or symbolism.
I make this parallelism between the present and the Ancien Regime, because the idea is quite simple, if people have faith in God and in the hierarchical structure of the Church, and their representatives tell us that the Kings are the ones who must govern, so the sensible thing is to think that kings should govern and that we should be governed by them. However, if we believe that we are all equal, then there is no reason why they should rule over us. Then, that if the dominant belief is materialism, and our faith is placed in money, it is easy to determine that those who are going to govern are those who control money.
With all this on the table, I will begin to explain the functioning of the current social organization.
The Central Banks are the ones that are higher in the system, because they are the ones who control the supply of money. The International Banking is in charge of buying the sovereign bonds issued by the governments of different countries, in this way, the politicians can make the public institutions work, the armies, the police, the public health system, the education, and the rest of the state bureaucracy responsible for governing people. Without the money of the International Banking the governments can't pay the institutions, and if the public servant don't receive money they will not work, and if they don't work the corporatocracy can't govern the people. In this way, the International Banking indirectly controls politicians.
What do not control the politicians directly?
Yes, most politicians belong to the corporatocracy, since it finances their electoral campaigns, they give coverage in the media, or they simply bribe them, in short, they make life simpler for politicians who align with their interests. Sometimes some politicians serve the interests of the corporatocracy without even knowing that they do it, they simply think in a way aligned with the interests of the elite. Otherwise, they extort or use force.
However, like every system, it has a flaw, and that flaw is that materialism, headed by money, are at the top of the pyramid, so that whoever has a significant amount of money, in effect, can use it to do the same thing they do. After all, under this system people have no loyalty to the corporatocracy but to the money, who can pay, can get support.
In such a way that the international clique of corporatocrats use two very subtle mechanisms to monopolize to a greater extent the control of money.
And that is achieved through direct and indirect clientelism.
Direct clientelism is the one that employs the use of state power, using legislation to dictate laws that favor corporations that are owned by corporatocrats, this with the objective of eliminating competition. In this way they use the law, an instrument that they consider fiction, but that people like you and I accept because we don't want to be recriminated. The law does not apply to them, but to us.
Indirect clientelism, on the other hand, is carried out through credit, using conventional private banking to finance their own businesses with people's money. Because the current banking system works with the fiduciary money system, and with a fractional reserve system, the issued credit dilutes the purchasing power that people's money has, and transfers it to their hands. That money, of course, is spent wisely, with the aim of increasing its power in the industrial sector. The premise is as follows; the money must always be monopolized and never spent arbitrarily, otherwise, the distribution of that money in the hands of the people would cause a lot of inflation.
Ludwig von Mises, explained that if the money supply increases, the rise in prices would not occur in a general way, but would increase first in one sector and then in another. For example, if we gave all consumers of an economy $ 1,000,000, it is likely that the price of basic goods and services increases in a general way, however, it is likely that a fairly large group of people will want spend their money on sports cars, therefore, we may see a greater increase in the prices of sports cars than in the rest of the cars, that is because the demand of sports cars will be much higher than the supply available.
Well, what happens in practice, is that the banks issue new money and give it to the corporatocrats, and they spend that money on specific goods and services, that is, on increasing the capacity of their own companies, in such a way that can beat the competition.
Let's see an example:
Suppose a new entrepreneur, one that does not belong to the corporatocracy, decides to start a business. If the business does not increase much in size, there is no problem, but if the business is emerging as the dominant force of an market, the corporacrats can easily create companies in that sector, and inject a large amount of credit, that will make their companies can grow at a faster rate than the market naturally allows, which means that the prices of the resources that this new economic sector needs to produce increase at such a high rate that the entrepreneur can't keep his company unless get a bank loan. So the entrepreneur faces a dilemma, bankruptcy, or mortgage his business to the corporatocracy.
I invite you to investigate the big corporations, all of them are totally or partially in the hands of the banks.
All this, of course, they do on a large scale, which causes them to inject so much credit into the economy that they overestimate the capacity for real growth, creating what is known as a credit bubble, which is always preceded by a recession that allows them to close the inorganic companies that they created by injecting the credit.
That process has a high cost that, of course, people and the credibility of politicians have to pay.
At this point, to regain the credibility in politics, new politicians emerge and the Central Bank is in charge of buying the financial assets of debt held by the banks, with the objective that they reissue credit and repeat the process again, but an even bigger scale.
The end result is the hoarding of wealth in a few hands, because if they let all this credit spread in a general way, the result would be inflation, and therefore, the destruction of the economy. And what they are looking for is the concentration of capital, with the objective that there is no inflation, but in such a way that when monopolizing money, they also concentrate power.
Those influential companies with which they can't compete for different reasons, such as, for example, companies with new technology, generally end up being acquired by larger companies. Companies like Microsoft and Facebook have acquired different competitors, just to name an example.
All this mechanism that I have described allows them to control all institutions, such as banking, government, media, industry and bureaucratic institutions.
They also wield great power in institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the credits rating agencies, these three elements allow it to largely subject the smaller countries with underdeveloped industries, lending money as long as these small countries decide to accept their conditions, or failing that, to flood them with expensive private loans so that the high interests end up drowning the economies of these countries.
Finally, for them the rights are a business, they need to sell us as many rights as possible, with the aim of increasing taxes and increasing the control of the State over our lives.
We all know that the taxes collected by the government are never enough to pay the debt they incur, the real purpose of taxes is to reduce as much as possible the money that is in circulation, and that they themselves have introduced into the economy through credit, in order to control inflation within relatively manageable parameters.
The rights, on the other hand, should be expanded as much as possible. The more rights people have, the larger the State must be to guarantee them. For this same reason they love minorities, it does not matter if there are not, they will take care of creating them. After all, totalitarian nations have had constitutions with a lot of rights for their citizens.
To conclude, I can't assure you that there is a group of people who are doing all this that I describe, but I have tried to fit my theory into the facts, instead of the facts in the theory. History has shown us that social organization has always been directed by a small group of people, an elite, and when I see the behavior of the world economy, everything seems to indicate that things are not very different.
However, there is also the possibility that the system works, as it does, in a purely inertial way, that is to say, that there is not a conspiracy of people doing all this that I have said, but that, when all seek the material benefit, their actions are harmonized in an almost providential way to generate this result.
In such a case, the result would be very similar to what Adam Smith said:
"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
If so, if the invisible hand is not that of invisible men, but is ours, that of all, if what we are living now is the result of the action of man in freedom, but submerged in a materialistic belief, the change it resides simply in modifying our belief structure, that is, displacing materialism by a different belief.
In conclusion, the current system is governed by our beliefs and the value we give to the material, whether there is an international clique governing us, or if there is not, the change of social organization is to transform our scale of values and replace materialism for something better.
Awesome post! Your analysis goes into something which not many people talk about.
I tend to think like this. The only power the State has is what society(individuals) gives it. Since like you say, humanity as a collective only knows or follows materialism as an encompassing philosophy; people are slaves to the present social organization and values which cater to having a dominant group of people control others through usury(money), as most people themselves think the production and use of capital is the end all be all—make sense.
Now I wonder, what is keeping people from not recognizing the other elements of humanity? Keeping people sick, in all forms, I suspect is also a culprit.
Thanks!
Well, I really still keep asking myself questions about many of these things. I suppose that the structures of power, which are supported by the dominant belief, tend to reinforce people these values and beliefs, and the human being, who has an adaptive nature, ends up molding himself to the dominant idea and its power structures. But it is only a hypothesis.
We must also add that people generally do not seem to think much about these things, but take them for granted. In the Ancien Regime the Church and religion were responsible for covering almost all aspects of people's lives, and today, in one way or another, consumerism and materialism keeps people busy, in such a way that do not allow themselves to question reality.
In many cases, it requires reading and dedication time, to be able to see things from another angle. Until not too long ago I was still quite materialistic, it takes some practice and knowledge on some topics to understand other new concepts. For example, many people do not understand how it was possible for people to believe that the Kings really had a divine power, they simply can not understand that concept, just as people in the past would not understand current power relations, ideas like The rule of law would seem equally absurd to them.
In a certain way, we are all stuck in a box of beliefs, and we only leave it when we enter another.
You guys make it sound like it is easy to escape the reality we live in. This is not just a decision we will be able to make, it would take a few generations to rid ourselves of an idea/ideas that has been so meticulously implanted into the very fabric of our nature (our kids grow up in front of the TV).
I hear you @vieira and the concept explained in your post is so spot on I am sitting here waiting to see how 'they' terminate your account for speaking to much of the truth. But (there is always a but in someones opinion, even though it would take me a month or two to write up such excellent post) it is not just a case of "the only power the State has is what society(individuals) gives it". These people have knowledge of concepts/technologies/ideas we can not even dream off. They know exactly what to do to make people behave/react a specific way.
Even the complexity of the system you just explain (which I'm sure is not all there is to it, even though I have not seen anyone explain it better) is evidence of what I am trying to explain. Do you think someone in normal conditions could think of a plan like this? Not to even mention finding a method of implementing it.
I always use an example of how to fool the masses with knowledge that only a few have. Take us back a few 100 years. If an emperor or king had knowledge of the date of the next solar eclipse (something that's common knowledge in our day and age) he could tell his people that he would make the sun go dark and everyone would believe he is a god.
This however is a very simple example and many a moons ago. What do you think could be conjured up in today's day and age?
How do you explain the people that are less immune to their brainwashing/conditioning/forms of control? The people that make up the State at end of day are still individuals like you and I.
@superfluousman a year back all my arguments would have been backed by science. Because the very word science represents the truth and is founded in facts but it is because we were made to believe so. A recent study done by a scientist himself concluded that 50% of all the scientific studies out there in the world of science is questionable at best.
I can agree with you in part, like @vieira explains in the hierarchy above that at the lower level it is normal people running the show but I think (and it is only my opinion. Okay not my opinion but someone else's opinion ) that higher up there might be rulers not like you and me, making the plans (shun me for talking conspiracy theories). If one would quote the work of David Icke and I do hear him say a lot of time "I don't give a damn"... : )
Maybe he is wrong but how do you argue against something you have not studied/researched yourself. Up to recently I've always thought he is as crazy as bat shit (saying I've picket up recently here on steemit).
Well, it was not my intention to make it seem easy, on the contrary, that is, what I was trying to say is that the structure of power seems, at first glance, to be quite fragile, since it depends on the beliefs of the people, so, if they thought different everything would change. But on the other hand, it is unlikely to happen, in fact, Marx thought that all these beliefs, which represented the superstructure, would be replaced, and that the proletariat would take control over the only thing that according to him mattered, the means of production, but that It never happened.
More knows the devil for being old than for being the devil. I think that the people who govern, have a long time doing it, have built this model of government on the basis of the previous government, that is, the Ancien Regime, in the same way that the Germanic royalty built theirs on the basis of the Roman model after that this one fell.
Rest assured that this is the case, there is much more that we do not see, in fact, there are many things that I still ask myself. That's why I said that I would describe the system in a superficial way, because there are simply things that I leave out for lack of knowledge. And I think that no matter how much I study about it, there will be some things that I will never know, unless I belong to their most restricted group, and that they voluntarily explain it to me.
Well, I ask myself the same question, I do not know if this system was created based on a process of failure and correction, or it is simply the result of some prodigious mind, or of a superior knowledge.
There is a phrase of the Baron de Rothschild that says something like: Let us control the money of a country and we care not who makes its laws. I suppose these subjects learned better than anyone else how they can use money, since they were the bankers of royalty and clergy for centuries.
Well, I usually make parallels between science and religion, and on several occasions I have said how science has become a fallacy of authority today, so those who have this kind of knowledge that you describe, can effectively use it to dominate people.
Like this saying! I have never heard this before.
Agree 100%. Think my recent rant in my post on science ties up well.
Like your work @vieira! If you have time please see my question in my first comment. It is really something stuck in my head recently.
I was about to answer your question in the first comment, but it was raining and electricity was gone, now I answer.
Laziness. Easier to conform.
Yup, good comparison. It's really all about not getting people to question or just plain think. If one can do that, then they've done more service than any politician or proselytizer. One should question everything, nothing is outside this. Though for many people including so-called anarchists, they stop at certain points and don't look at from a truly critical wholistic angle like you have.
I agree. I think it's all about finding what set of beliefs or values brings the most profit to ones life. Sadly, many people don't really care about freedom or the humane life.
I cannot agree more @superfluousman people are to focused on comfort for themselves.
Stop it! I have work to do! I can't be reading the whole time!
Are you on minds as well @vieira?
lol
@vieira
Out of all the post that I have read on steemit this is a close contender for the best one! You touch so many good points I don't know which one I want to ask about. I wish I could sit down and talk to you man. You must be a walking Encyclopedia!
The most interesting point. Okay let me restart, there are to many interesting points. The one bothering me most is where you mention:
What is your believe? Are you convinced that this is cemented in us all solely for this purpose?
The reason I'm asking this, even though I do believe in a higher power (a creator) is because of a clip I have watched on US government mind control methods. Used back when TV just came out and the specific phrase used by them. God is real God is Watching as seen below.
If you want to see the documentary have a look below (start at 10 minutes 30 seconds)
I firmly believe they know a great deal more than us and question the use of this phrase - "God is real God is Watching". It must have been for a specific purpose and fits your explanation better than a believe/religion in God.
What is your opinion?
Thanks!
Well, I'm also trying to decipher many of these things. I think the first thing we should ask ourselves is; Which God? The Christian God or another? Although many people find it difficult to believe, kings in the past were convinced of their divinity, often from there they drew the strength to govern the nations, that is, the kings not only used religion to numb people as many believe , but they were also convinced of their existence and governed on the basis of that belief.
In this way, the modern elite could also have a set of beliefs, in this case materialistic, and govern based on it.
Although really, they are just a set of assumptions. I must keep informing myself, and although it may seem incredible, sometimes the answers are in an underestimated phrase in a paragraph of a book that is 500 or 1000 years old.
If you have time I think you will enjoy a recent post by @positivesynergy and an interview @mistermercury had with Dick Cheney.
It is also an attempt to bring it all together
Yes, I just read both publications. Thanks!
Here is the god people also like to believe in.
pretty interesting ideas. GDP and all the material wealth can only quantify what we can measure. However, the stuff that we cannot measure is the quality of relationships and the social fabric of a community gets left aside. This is just sad.
Yes, that is, we do not currently compare the countries by their cultural level, their knowledge, their traditions, but we look at the macroeconomic indicators, if a country has a lot of production, little unemployment and low inflation rates then it is acceptable, the opposite is a failure. Marx would be proud of modern society.
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance: Hierarchy
Our Purpose
This was a fascinating read. I appreciate that you have thought beyond the obvious, though perhaps not valid, pinning of the materialistic donkey tail on a coordinated agenda by the elite, but rather have left the possibility that we humans have created the beliefs that have created our current corrupted madness of materialism. This would be a massive, species-wide collective unconscious devotion to the material. How intriguing!
It certainly appears that we must transform our beliefs, irregardless of their origins, to something else come from a greater state of awareness and come from a condition of higher consciousness.
The question is: How? From what I have observed and experienced, transitions of this magnitude only occur after some pivotal, often cataclysmic event(s). And, I'm wondering if we are, in fact, creating this event thru our belief in an apocalyptic future.
Well...anyway... Thanks. Blessings.
In fact, I think it's exactly like that.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
you worked very hard on this post.
it's a shame it's all wrong.
at the bottom of the social structure, any social structure.
is tribalism...the family or the extended family.
everything else is derived from that.
Yes, it is possible that it is so, I did not explain it in that way, but it is within the possibilities, I do not believe that what I have said is incompatible with this.
I'd say it's directly incompatible.
the maximium viable most effecient social organization is the monkeysphere (the extended family...the tribe).
when the number of people exceed dunbar's number the efficiency of interaction goes down...people begin to act irrationally, the larger the more so. to the point where they actions are insane.
Large organizations ARE insane...
or at least that's the way it looks like to me...after over fifty years of personal observation.
And of course the tribal or family model is incompatible with this mastodon that we have today, what I meant, is that I could have said that tribalism was at the base of the pyramid, and even then I would not change the structure that I explained , it's just a question of semantics, because what I tell is not how I want things to be, but how more or less I think it is in the present, of course, there is no absolute precision.
can't argue with the (insane) mastadon part...
@positivesynergy, @mistermercury
Here is a post you guys might enjoy.
Im not sure if you will check comments under your old post @vieira, but I would like to thank you for sharing that link with me.
Very valuable info. Obviously post to old to upvote.
Unfortunatelly.
I live around many Chinese people on daily basis and they beliefs and entire lifestyles are determined by material conditions. Money is everything.
Yours
Piotr
Oh yes, that's something very common in modernity, if culture is created based on the economy, then everything will be determined based on material conditions.
Comments are always appreciated, it does not matter if they are in old posts, thanks to you then for passing. Regards!
Appreciate your kind comment @vieira
Have a great upcoming weekend
Piotr
You missunderstood materialism. In philosophy materialism is the opossite to idealism, that things exists no matter we perceive them or not. Materialism is not related to be interested just in your own satisfaction, that is hedonism.
What is your argument to say that I do not understand materialism?
This piramid.
Did you read the post?
I read it briefly, i´m not making a book about it. Don´t take me wrong, that piramid is missleading, even when your post has bright, that image doesn´t help it.
It is illustrative, when I did it I did not give it the least importance. Thanks for the observation, in view of the various inconveniences that the image has brought me, in the future I will be more careful about it.
Did you read what the piramid says?
I wrote what the pyramid says.
I think I'm going to have to eliminate the image, you're the third person who is infatuated, with the pyramid, a guy recorded a video and everything. It seems to me that they do not even read the content, the image is merely accessory, the descriptions of the image are superficially descriptive, they are not made to explain, but to illustrate. In the post I refer to both dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and as in the present, both beliefs are the predominant idea.
Hahahaha i´m not making a video, i have no time for that. But yeah, it is noisy.
Belive me, your post is good, i don´t hate you.