As public perception and understanding spreads concerning the state of consumer capitalism and its glaring social failures on reaching a pinnacle of corruption and uncertainty, it is worth addressing how to counter and hopefully nurture some more years out of the ‘old girl’.
When dealing with any form of social governance it is important to consider the ultimate aim of the concept to understand where in the timeline of that particular system one’s society exists.
So, for example, a theory of communism dictates that ultimately all members of a state receive equal rights for and shares of all.
The ultimate goal of capitalism by contrast dictates that at the point of nadir, one organisation will own everything and employ everyone.
It is not difficult to point out the inherent flaws in either concept and how unlikely it would be to ever achieve such states given human nature and a few historical lessons. Yet currently, with higher levels of education and far more socially aware and conscious generations taking interest in the manner in which they are governed, people are starting to question some very clear problems with the evolution of capitalism into consumer capitalism and the point in the timeline that we appear to be at, as globalisation takes control.
The fact of people working longer, for less money and less public services than many preceding generations whilst corporations and global holding companies rake in increased or record profits year in year out, is one that is being broadcast fervently now by socialist politicians.
This is emphasised by the simple demonstration of the misdistribution of resources globally today. We hear how companies have to represent the interests of their shareholders and that a great part of our capitalistic system is the ability for anyone to own stakes in companies and thus reap the benefits of the profits made by those companies.
The problem is that at a point in time, eventually shares in companies will mostly be owned by other companies or holding companies designed to reap dividends for a very few wealthy investors. So that means the majority of people are not working to make dividends for individual shareholders but in fact for other companies, themselves likely in the most part owned by other companies. Even if working for themselves, individuals will be beholden to pay more and more to massive organisations hidden behind deep walls of poorly paid ‘Customer Service’ representatives. What about society? Well, remember, business is business, it’s nothing personal, it’s just business.
So, now that these organisations hold more funds than individual nations, there is no actual means to regulate and control their actions due to their inherent ability to threaten financial destabilisation if they are impeded.
What choice do we have then? Well there is a very clear and simple one. Organisations provide products or services. If, as has regularly been touted by the financial elite when a threat appears to their profits, we lose the ‘world class talent’ of the corrupt, immoral and self-serving by choosing a path that does not benefit them. Well, goodbye, farewell, in fact, don’t come back as the UK is filled with talent and innovation and can attract more to our shores as needed (or so our government, for once truthfully, tells us…). In very real terms, we will have money to pay for services and products and as today, all the unaffected organisations will still want to sell them to us.
Therefore, the return to public ownership of the organisations that make up the core of our country will be the innovation and investment for us and generations to come that changes the UK and leads the way for modern social governance.
What is more concerning due to the currently developing globalisation-led state control by organisations is that to enact the seizure of state assets from organisations, the only remaining services entirely loyal to the state and not government would likely be needed to enforce such action. Fortunately the pragmatic and dutiful nature of the majority of such service personnel will be a beacon of light at that time.
The financial and social benefits are immeasurable as the generation of new markets, new pricing and higher UK based employment would create a far different structure than exists today. State ownership of institutions would not imply ownership by government mandarins as portrayed in the 60s and 70s but as shared owned services of the citizens of a nation.
The social results would entail lower prices for the modern essentials; transport, water, energy, telecoms and television. The stimulation to consumer capitalism would come from increased funds available to fund luxuries and consumables. So, in the very real terms that global organisations are terrified of, our capitalism would become truly consumer-led and not leading the consumer into ever increasing debt.
Who knows, we could even return to the heyday of decades past when train lines run to most towns in our country, not just up and down one massive, expensive and pointless line. More jobs, more investment, more opportunity for individuals. They are not innovations, they are supposed to be the job and purpose of our government.
Part Two (to come) – A comparison between the public institutions, that were deemed too costly to run as nationalised industries, with civil service roles, which were not.