Ideologies

Edenist ideologies
People who adhere to what I call Edenist ideologies believe there is some supreme commandment, from which all others stem, and that all the evil in the world exists because this principle is not adhered to. In this group we find Anarchism, most religions, Anacratic Capitalism.

In the case of Religions, the Supreme Commandment is divine will.

In the case of Anarchism it is what they call ``the cooperation principle``An idea of universal human solidarity, mutual help and cooperation to achieve common wellbeing. All for one and one for all. Like the novel ``The Dispossessed`` They believe in total and utter human equality. Therefore, they oppose Capitalism just as much as the State, as both perpetuate human inequality In their opinion, all evil comes from the fact that human beings strive towards their self interest, which leads them to subjugate and dominate each other. They think self interest is the motive for all evil, and that if people only strove to help others evil could not exist.(If you`re an anarchist and think I said something wrong feel free to tell me)

In the case of Anacratic Capitalism the Supreme Commandment is the Non Aggression Principle or NAP
They believe all voluntary human interaction is moral, and anything that involves the use of force is immoral. Also that people own their bodies, and therefore the fruits of their labor. That is why they are against the existence of government, but not of capitalism, as capitalism is voluntary, but government is coercive.

Relativist Ideologies
Ideologies that believe that  the world changes and develops and that morality needs to develop with it. They don`t believe there is a cure-all, or some underlying fault that can be fixed in order to set the world right. Here you will find pretty much every ideology you have ever heard of other than the fore-mentioned three. This is where you can find my beliefs

Now I believe the reason for much(not even most) of the evil in the world is class conflict.
There are two classes in the world. Those who work and produce, and those who own the means by which the workers do so. The Proletarians and Propertarians. The Propertarians I subdivide into capital creators(enterprising) and those who merely passively own what the former have created (non-enterprising) That would be the infamous 1% of people who own most of the stock(shares in the means of production) there is to own. The pyramid looks something like this

The uppermost wealth elite own a huge part of all the wealth there is to own, thanks to the fact they own the means of production. Regardless of whether it is moral or not, the working class, the vast majority of the population, will want to get their hands on that wealth. And the owners will certainly want to preserve it. In order to do this, they have to hire people to protect them. That is why states form. Because it is the only way for the rich to preserve their wealth. If they merely used their own money to protect their wealth, they would still be overpowered by the vast majority organizing to take it from them. Therefore the wealthy need to create a monopoly on violence in order to remain wealthy

History confirms this. The first states formed in river valleys, where agriculture first formed. Agriculture was productive enough for owning the means of agricultural production (the land) to make sense. The land was parceled out. Then it was bought and sold until it got concentrated in very few hands. Then these rich land owners created the first states to protect their wealth. That is why the rulers and ruling elites of the first states were landowners. For as long as agriculture was the backbone of the economy, all ruling elites remained landowners. When the Industrial Revolution happened the main means of production became industrial capital (factories)The old wealth elite, which relied on owning land was destroyed, but the monopoly over violence they created (their state) endured to serve their new industrial masters.
Now by this time society had become democratized to a certain extent. This process had begun in the late Middle ages, when a third class of merchants and craftsmen had formed in the cities, and started fighting for their chunk of power. This democratization meant that government had become, at least to an extent, a force of its own, which could serve the interests of  the Proletarians against the Propertarians or just go of doing its own thing and harming both. But overall it still maintained the monopoly over violence necessary to maintain private ownership over the means of production. Capitalism was still its Siamese twin. They could wound, but not mortally harm each other, like Harry and Voldemort`s wands. That is pretty much the system that dominates the world today.

So my solution would be to ban people from ``owning`` capital in the traditional sense. If capital could not be bought and sold, inherited, given away or bartered, like normal property, it could not be accumulated in such quantities that its owners needed to create a state to defend themselves. In other words, people should only be allowed to be the bosses of enterprises they have created, and should have no right to transfer that privilege to anyone. And after they die, their employees would spontaneously take over their factories. Worker cooperatives can function, it`s been proven. They would not own the enterprises in the traditional sense either. They would not be like shareholders. They would merely be people who earn a livelihood from willingly working together. They would take care of the enterprise and better it for the same reasons a boss would: They can make more money. They would kick out lazy workers and looters as well. Again for the same reason a boss would.

And, ironically we would need a state to accomplish that.

A state will always form to further class interests. The only difference is whether it will protect the Propertarian or the Proletarian class, and the default is a state which protects the rich.