MEDP – Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems

An article which I am just about set to publish concerns a critique of ideologies combating with each other. It is based on Eraclitus’ (pre-Socratic) notion that everything operates in a state of antagonisms and conflict. He offered an interesting perspective in his philosophy resembling somewhat of a yin and yang route as he argued that although two bodies may be in conflict, they do so in unity and harmony. Some examples would include the Sun and Moon, or spring and fall, summer and winter, etc.  They are opposites of each other but all serve a useful, and practical, function.

Lately in politics, this opposites approach in political/economic ideologies is taking shape via Third Way policies.  Although capitalism and socialism have been used in a variety of ways to battle each other’s ill effects whilst trying to maximize the benefits of each ideology for well over 300 years (socialist ideas were not invented by Marx, simply contextualized for the industrial period), it does not need to be that way. Eraclitus’ philosophies and Third Way policies indicate that the practical and useful foundations of any ideology can be used together as situations demand.

There is no need to stick to an “all or nothing” ideological perspective. This behaviour foments animosity between people of different inclinations and can lead to a breakdown of communication, cooperation, and perhaps even spark violence.

This new-ish perspective can be used by CEOs or government leaders to determine whether or not they are neglecting positive practices from other ideologies simply due to an entrenched (and perhaps no longer reasonable) policy approach.  The EU and many Middle East, South, East, and South-East Asian economies are implementing social mechanisms to care for their employees/citizens but not at the expense of capitalistic viability.

Careful application of capitalistic practices with social benefits will mediate the harsher sides of capitalism whilst keeping socialism realistic, productive, and viable. Why can the citizens of Sweden or Saudi Arabia get to go to university anywhere in the world for ‘free’ (paid through taxes). Why do citizens of France, Canada, UK, etc. get free health care and in some instances dental? With practical and responsible applications of basic ideological foundations which may prove useful for certain societies or situations, a business or government can increase their employee/citizen happiness. I personally do not think that sticking to one ideology for the sake of it makes any particular sense.

– Jean-Paul

There is a stereotype that is often portrayed in popular media of the secretive, elusive, wealthy, and elitist body known as the ‘corporate’. The term corporation is now quite vexed with negative connotations and in most instances, quite deservedly. I, for one, do not like to ascribe myself as a member of this ‘corporate’ identity but prefer to remain as I am, unchanged.

Being ‘corporate’ has a variety of meanings depending on your position within a body and the type of body you are part of. Say for example, you may work for a private or publicly trading company. It may be a local company or a transnational behemoth with several boards and committees. Each has its own requisite legal obligations and the culture of business is quite varied depending on the country you work in. All of these factors play a role in the type of ‘corporatist’ a person can be viewed as.

The bottom line however, is the recognition that the pushing of barriers seems to blur ‘corporates’ from ‘workers’ which re-humanizes the position as the pushing of these barriers often breaks them.

- Jean-Paul