The “system is not limited in a local, geographical sense.” Rather, Havel writes, “it holds sway over a huge power block.”^∇

The system does not lack historical roots. It took form on the back of “the proletarian social movements of the nineteenth century.”^∇

It commands a “…precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and … extremely flexible ideology that… is almost a secularized religion.”^∇

The dictatorship has “ownership and central direction of all the means of production.”^∇

This type of dictatorship is “another form of the consumer and industrial society, with all its concomitant social, intellectual, and psychological consequences.”^∇

Within each nation, businesses “hold sway over” all levels of governments, particularly about the way they get and spend their money. Around the world, multinationals & ldquo;hold sway over” over many countries at once, “a huge power block.”

In other words, businesses, no matter their size, are part of a huge power block.

Although there is not a Left and Right ideology when it comes to businesses, there is a cultural ideology that supports them. Among others, Roy S Jacques writes that “Beginning in the Western Europe of the fourteenth to sixteenth century one find a growth of a mode of consciousness… [that] has a ‘mechanical’ orientation to it, emphasizing instrumentality, emotionlessness, accumulation, skepticism, individual consciousness, standardization, and objectification. It is also from this mode of consciousness that the particular form of production and exchange currently dominant worldwide has emerged.”

He continues to say that between the 17th and 19th century, “Liberty no longer meant the freedom to perfect an enclosed city protected from the world. It was redirected as the freedom to conquer and order that outer world. Progress no longer meant movement toward a finite goal, but infinite expansion into a limitless universe.” Conquering and infinite expansion is the ideology that sustains businesses to this day.

In other words, businesses have a historical root, one that is embedded in today’s Fiat culture.

The unquestioned acceptance of what ownership means and how it works is the secularized religion of businesses. “Ownership” is the mysterious, unmentionable name of this religion. The overwhelming majority of the stuff listed under “business/economics,” including books on self-management, are simply tweaks of this religion, but they are blind to the issue of “ownership”.

In other words, the business ideology, then, is the unquestioned acceptance of ownership as is.

Admittedly, State ownership is a worst case, but ownership by a few bosses is pretty bad, too

In other words, ownership as is the invisible culprit and we need to see it for what it is and all its implications.

Admittedly, democracies are better for people than dictatorships. Still, they both are different shapes “… of the consumer and industrial society.”^∇

In other words, if we can agree that extremely centralized ownership (i.e. Soviet-style dictatorships) doesn't work as well as more decentralized ownership, then we must move towards an even more decentralized ownership model (i.e. co-owned companies)

Over time, businesses have come to make up a huge international block (i.e., and, no, not due to a conspiracy or any such). We need to experiment with models based on people and their communities instead. The RADICAL COMPANIES book offers a viable model.^∇

History is made little by little and that’s how’ve ended up in the mess we are in, burning our own life boat, little by little. According to David Graeber, author of Debt: the First 5,000 Years,^∇ the fuel for this has been debt. Quantified debt gave birth to money which in turn made it easy to extract and accumulate wealth.

The ideology of Soviet-style dictatorships was based on Marx’ prescription, half-baked as they were.

Western democracies’ ideology ends up being something like, “Work hard and you, too, can become wealthy. Good luck!.”^∇

New wealth creates some public goods, but much of it ends up as private goods. In the case of dictatorships, the party bosses live very well (i.e., off their private goods) and get to command the allocation of the rest. In democracies, much of this wealth ends up in the hands of a few business owners who also live very well, but the rest of this wealth is passed to the State from which public goods comes out.

People’s effort and commerce fuels dictatorships and democracies alike. This is not to say that they are alike: by far, democracy is preferable to dictatorship (i.e., I’ve lives under both systems). But the fact still remains that they are both fueled by people’s effort and commerce.

Through their efforts and commerce, people create wealth. In dictatorships, a lot of it goes to the State; in democracies, much of it goes to businesses and then the State. People keep enough to make a living, through many not even than, and some public goods trickle down from the State (e.g., roads, bridges, public schools).^∇ In other words, this wealth creates some public goods, but the overwhelming portion of it ends up in private hands. But even these public goods benefit primarily the interests of businesses and the State. Roads and bridges make it possible for people to get to work to create wealth for businesses and the same roads and bridges make it easier to move the tanks where the State needs the muscle. It so happens to be the same roads and bridges that people use to go to the beach on weekends.

I should also point out that in both dictatorships and democracies a lot of this wealth ends up in the so-called industrial-military complex.^∇

Most of us learn to see this centralization of power as a positive thing, ”thank goodness, because if it weren’t for the State/businesses/military would not have nice things like bridges, roads, and schools.” Sadly, even though this system is literally unsustainable, this mindset stops us from doing anything about it. We need to decentralize decision-making. Centralization is not good for us. It is hostile to innovation and even hostile to commerce. What innovation there is, (e,g,, in medicine) is accidental and it overwhelmingly ends up as private goods.