syst:system_change

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision		 Previous revision
syst:system_change [2025/12/22 12:34] – Dave Darbysyst:system_change [2026/04/20 19:43] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
-# System change+This topic is part of [[gt:philosophy|Philosophy & politics]]. 
 +====== System change ======
  
  
Line 11: Line 12:
  
  
- +===== Human nature =====
-## Human nature+
  
 Most people are [perfectly nice](http://lowimpactorg.onyx-sites.io/what-is-human-nature-are-we-really-a-horrible-species/ "What is human nature? Are we really a horrible species?") - kind, friendly, honest and with a desire to leave the world a better place than they found it. But some people aren't. It's only a small minority, but some people are selfish, greedy and ruthless. The problem is that in this system, those kinds of people will do very well, and reach positions of influence. In fact, the current system is biased _in favour_ of those people. And so we need a new system - one that rewards good qualities rather than bad ones. The problem is not 'human nature', and it's not enough to replace corrupt people at the top of the corporate ladder, because similar people will quickly replace them. People die, and companies come and go - think Lehman Brothers or Enron. The problem is the system itself. Most people are [perfectly nice](http://lowimpactorg.onyx-sites.io/what-is-human-nature-are-we-really-a-horrible-species/ "What is human nature? Are we really a horrible species?") - kind, friendly, honest and with a desire to leave the world a better place than they found it. But some people aren't. It's only a small minority, but some people are selfish, greedy and ruthless. The problem is that in this system, those kinds of people will do very well, and reach positions of influence. In fact, the current system is biased _in favour_ of those people. And so we need a new system - one that rewards good qualities rather than bad ones. The problem is not 'human nature', and it's not enough to replace corrupt people at the top of the corporate ladder, because similar people will quickly replace them. People die, and companies come and go - think Lehman Brothers or Enron. The problem is the system itself.
Line 20: Line 20:
 ![An opinion which perhaps embodies why we need systemic change](https://lowimpactorg.onyx-sites.io/wp-content/uploads/systemic1.jpg) ![An opinion which perhaps embodies why we need systemic change](https://lowimpactorg.onyx-sites.io/wp-content/uploads/systemic1.jpg)
 <caption> <caption>
- _Alan Sugar on _the Apprentice_: “She is ruthless. She’ll walk over anybody, chew them up for breakfast and spit them out. That’s what I like about her.”_+ _Alan Sugar on_ the Apprentice: _“She is ruthless. She’ll walk over anybody, chew them up for breakfast and spit them out. That’s what I like about her.”_
 </caption> </caption>
 </figure> </figure>
Line 27: Line 27:
  
  
-## Lifestyle change+===== Lifestyle change =====
  
 Most of this website is about ways in which people can change their lives, one [topic](http://lowimpactorg.onyx-sites.io/topics-2/ "Topics") at a time. But it's not enough, because not enough people will do it. Think about the most popular food, furniture or clothing brands, retail outlets, newspapers, magazines, TV programmes and books; about the ubiquity of advertising; about the most popular political parties; about the ability of the corporate media to shape opinions - then ask yourself if enough people are going to change. The corporate system we live under, apart from promoting bad human qualities, is inherently damaging to nature and to democracy, and therefore has to be replaced. Lifestyle change without systemic change is like serving organic food on the Titanic - it looks like a sustainable thing to do until you step back and see the whole picture. Most of this website is about ways in which people can change their lives, one [topic](http://lowimpactorg.onyx-sites.io/topics-2/ "Topics") at a time. But it's not enough, because not enough people will do it. Think about the most popular food, furniture or clothing brands, retail outlets, newspapers, magazines, TV programmes and books; about the ubiquity of advertising; about the most popular political parties; about the ability of the corporate media to shape opinions - then ask yourself if enough people are going to change. The corporate system we live under, apart from promoting bad human qualities, is inherently damaging to nature and to democracy, and therefore has to be replaced. Lifestyle change without systemic change is like serving organic food on the Titanic - it looks like a sustainable thing to do until you step back and see the whole picture.
Line 33: Line 33:
  
  
-## Revolution or reform+===== Revolution or reform =====
  
 If we need system change as well as lifestyle change, does that mean violent overthrow of the current system? Well, that's been tried before, and the people who take power by force always end up keeping it by force. Karl Marx's revolutionary idea was the last (implementable) one as far as system change is concerned - but the 20th century showed that it wasn't the right one. Some will say that Marx's idea was never really tried - but if we go down the route of violent revolution, strongmen take centralised power, inevitably resulting in totalitarianism. If we need system change as well as lifestyle change, does that mean violent overthrow of the current system? Well, that's been tried before, and the people who take power by force always end up keeping it by force. Karl Marx's revolutionary idea was the last (implementable) one as far as system change is concerned - but the 20th century showed that it wasn't the right one. Some will say that Marx's idea was never really tried - but if we go down the route of violent revolution, strongmen take centralised power, inevitably resulting in totalitarianism.
Line 50: Line 50:
  
  
-## Implementation+===== Implementation =====
  
 So if lifestyle change is not enough, and neither voting nor violence bring meaningful change, what's the solution? But before you put forward your favourite idea, remember that it has to be implementable. It's a waste of time saying that your idea is to switch power to local, democratic institutions, or to get corporate money out of politics, or to stop war or manufacturing weapons if you don't have a strategy to make it happen. We can all wish for things that are basically unimplementable - that's the easy part. So if lifestyle change is not enough, and neither voting nor violence bring meaningful change, what's the solution? But before you put forward your favourite idea, remember that it has to be implementable. It's a waste of time saying that your idea is to switch power to local, democratic institutions, or to get corporate money out of politics, or to stop war or manufacturing weapons if you don't have a strategy to make it happen. We can all wish for things that are basically unimplementable - that's the easy part.
Line 67: Line 67:
  
  
-## Transcending+===== Transcending =====
  
 Some people point to new technologies and suggest that they could be used to help us transition to a system of pure democracy - electronic referenda on all issues, for example. That may well be an improvement on the current corporate system, but a potential problem is that the vast majority of people don't really understand the issues, and many people will vote in their own self-interest rather than in the interest of all. This could be very bad news for minorities or for the environment. This kind of pure democracy has been described as 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. Some people point to new technologies and suggest that they could be used to help us transition to a system of pure democracy - electronic referenda on all issues, for example. That may well be an improvement on the current corporate system, but a potential problem is that the vast majority of people don't really understand the issues, and many people will vote in their own self-interest rather than in the interest of all. This could be very bad news for minorities or for the environment. This kind of pure democracy has been described as 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'.
Line 90: Line 90:
  
  
-## To summarise+===== To summarise =====
  
 1. It's not about corrupt individuals or corporations - the problem is the system itself. 1. It's not about corrupt individuals or corporations - the problem is the system itself.
Line 100: Line 100:
  
  
-## Further resources+===== Forum ===== 
 + 
 +This topic belongs to the section [[gt:philosophy|Philosophy & politics]]. You can ask questions or add information on the corresponding [Forum section](https://forum.growingthecommons.org/t/philosophy). 
 + 
 +===== Further resources =====
  
 - [The Next System Project](https://thenextsystem.org/) - promoting visions of a new system - [The Next System Project](https://thenextsystem.org/) - promoting visions of a new system
Line 115: Line 119:
  
  
-## Specialist curators of this topic+===== Related topics ===== 
 + 
 +- [[ptrn:Pattern language]] 
 +- [[ucos:Use-credit obligations]] 
 +- [Collaborative finance](cofi:collaborative_finance) 
 +- [[demo:democracy|The democracy problem]] 
 +- [[comg:Commoning]] 
 +- [[pgec:post-growth|Post-growth economics]] 
 +- [[phil:Philosophy]] 
 +- [[coec:Commons economy]] 
 +- [[ntre:nature|The nature problem]] 
 + 
 + 
 +===== Specialist curators of this topic =====
  
  
  
  • syst/system_change.1766406895.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2025/12/22 12:34
  • by Dave Darby