Capitalism and Societal Progression in Relation to Systems Theory: A Broad Outline

A brief cross-examination of prominent intellectual developments in Western civilization to changes in the economic systems applied at the times of these breakthroughs allows one to draw the conclusion without difficulty or much stipulation that the two systems (the economic and intellectual systems) inseparably effect one another; furthermore, they either inhibit or induce change in each other, depending upon popular paradigms, current events, and the topical state of the elite-mass dichotomy relationship.

A scientific definition of system is needed here in order to prevent any ambiguity of meaning. A system in this regard is "a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships" as defined by Béla H. Bánáthy. The elements, or parts, of an economic system for instance would be the people involved, the infrastructure, the products, and the movement of these elements. How these elements interact and the types of relationships between them which form the schematic of the system is determined by a relationship to another system. Both systems can holistically be considered individual elements and thus interact in a larger, more complex system. Systems do not have to be physical or tangible, they can be mental constructions. In this type of system, individual ideas or quanta of information are the elements and the perceived relationships are determined by its relationship to other systems. The overall patterning of these relationships is informed by a paradigm: a widely held viewpoint or macro-level understanding applicable to the comprehension of the world in general.

A feedback loop is observable involving the relationship of a paradigm to the construction of systems. The development of a paradigm is indistinguishably correlated to the perception of the nature of the relationship between elements or systems. In other words, what is believed to be the guiding principle or laws of organization in a system is how the relationship between elements is comprehended. This paradigm is informed through observation, yet these observations and the conclusions from these are informed through an already existing paradigm. To reiterate, the relationships we find, and thus the nature of the system or systems of systems, depends largely on what we expect to find from previous experience. Anyone who has played connect the dots should find this largely abstract concept a little easier to digest.

It was the fall of Arab Cordoba, Spain in 1236 which initiated in the cultural change which inevitably led to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. What had been discovered and distributed across Medieval Europe from Cordoba were books: copies of the Greek and Roman classics which had been lost up to that point. They had been copied into Arabic from Greek and then copied into Latin and distributed. Before the inundation of this information the paradigm effecting the comprehension of systems (and thus the formation of systems) was this: The world is a transient, sinful, inhospitable place. Don't bother getting attached to anything in it because it all goes away. The "real" world is in heaven. Because of this mindset, progression stagnated. There weren't any changes in our understanding because there was no need to explain anything. There was no new information then, and in the lack of information, there was no way to "connect more dots" and change any systems. But with the inundation of previously lost knowledge, society was able to systematize itself accordingly and change.

In turn, the relationships of the elements of the economic system changed because the paradigm changed. It went from one of earthly apathy to an attitude that believed that through careful investigation the natural world could be understood. Written law was developed, and the sciences differentiated. With more knowledge, new products were developed, and new systems. Through the interplay of the epistemological system with the economic, new systems emerged. All of this a direct result of a paradigm change which itself was the result of new information. This new information allowed for the creation of new elements which disrupted the current systems' functioning.

New information cannot effect an already existing system unless its allowed to. New information can be fit into systems, only altering slightly the general schematic. Occasionally it requires the reformatting of the entire system, a reevaluation of the existing relationships completely. As the nature of systems is one in which entire systems can function as elements of other systems, a reformation of one usually requires the reformation of multiple systems. There is an element of inertia to this change, and the only way to surmount this inertia is through a paradigm shift. As the systems involved are recalibrated, general system collapse may occur, and then we are forced to "pick up the pieces" and put it back together again. Often, the largest contributor to this inertia are the power systems, whose elements and their relationships are based upon maintaining the nature or patterning principle of subordinate systems. Herein lies their "power". The power systems act as a paradigm-enforcer, and one must but consider the Roman Catholic Church and their attempted suppression of heliocentricity to see this fact illustrated.

We must now define societal progression in this context. Societal progress in relation to systems theory denotes 1.) the quantity of information in those systems related to social phenomena and 2.) the complexity of the relationships between elements. Complexity denotes the quantity of relationships between elements. Imagine a complex tapestry, with more areas connected to other areas, or any complex pattern. Just as in physical biology, the concepts of complexity and evolution are entangled. In this sense, systems have an evolutionary nature to them, due to their tendency to complexify with the passage of time. We must ask what it means for a social system to complexify. If a social system consists of people, institutions, economic systems, systems of law modulating behavior, then what is the prominent paradigm which influences the type of relationships and the amount of complexity? I suggest the post-modern paradigm currently influencing the world’s systems derive prominently from two sources: the ideological systems of capitalism and its academically-accredited logic system “economics” and the influence of Darwinism from the end of the 19th century onward. With careful analysis, one can deduce that the overall structuring of relationships among elements in social systems is highly influenced by these two interrelated mental systems. They, and the current state of social systems in general, are a culmination of the feedback loop phenomena presented earlier. I also suggest that the organization of systems based upon the feedback loop influenced post-modern paradigm is beginning to break down, due to (once again) an inundation of new information and environmental pressures. The fact that the environment is invoking change in non-physical systems is evidence of the evolutionary nature of systems in general. The power systems’ in place today are completely dependent upon the continuation of the current paradigm influenced by Darwinism and Capitalism. It is this dependency which is thwarting societal progression since the current paradigm cannot incorporate in the new information nor meet the demands the environment has placed upon the current systems. And as the geological record happily displays the result of unsuccessful adaptation, it seems highly recommendable we take the necessary cautions to prevent extinction.