Breaking that mold needs multilayered strategy held within a tight group who do not have non predatory interests.

Opportunity to strike out into a new direction successfully is rare but has occurred and with a long battle backed by un-corruptible leadership. Evidence of successful progress is still with us in two Asian states who are well directed and yet allow limited capitalist activity but tightly controlled.

The USSR got stymied by systematic attacks over many decades and infiltration from many hostile quarters including the CIA and global financiers controlling a wildly aggressive propaganda regime that was successful but untruthful. The USSR formation and existence are regarded by its citizens as the golden years.
George Soros and some fellow CIA corruptees are banned from Russia.

The core beliefs to breaking the dog eat dog mold, must contain sovereignty, equity with a will and plan to eliminate poverty, enhance universal education, free public health, state controlled development of industry towards self reliance and self sufficiency with a state regulated plan to conserve resources and land can only be owned by its citizen user or rented from the state.
How all that is achieved are matters upon which the government is held to account.

To add I guess it probably is that under a capitalist regime the best brains are always by and large going to be attracted to where the greatest rewards are to be enjoyed. And this is always going to be into the world of commerce rather than the world of politics. So in the course of time the commercial sector, especially the finance sector which is always going to attract the cream at least of the self interested, are likely always to have the upper hand in the end.
D J S

It seems to me that government has passed the control of resources and control of the economy over to the multinational corporations; and into the bargain they have passed laws that forbid subsequent governments to reassert control on behalf of their citizens.
It is hard to imagine a society that is not controlled by an absolutely authoritarian government , at least as dictatorial as China’s that is not run by any system that could be described as anything but capitalism. But capitalism must operate under rules that serve the needs of all the people . All the rules we work under now protect capitalism and capitalists and capital. The people are constrained by the laws to serve capital. It is round the wrong way.
D J S

David any avoidance of being cut off from supplies we have built up dependency for, will play into the hands of large corporate investor groups forever chasing leverage to further their bottom line in the short term.

One thing that has become clear is that perceived short term profits are liable to dictate direction rather than what is good for stability and long term resilience within a community.

Unless a govt has some control or leadership in directing of resource use, or a strong mandate if newly elected, then its influence over the financial sector that is still operating is liable to default to existing neoliberal lines.

Neoliberals are most likely to be on both sides of the table with trade agreements.

I guess what I am hinting at is unless there is a very strong (or entrenched) central core controlling Govt that does not deviate from directing the carefully planned steps towards long term good , then the resolve of the electors will be under piecemeal attack from both sides of the table.

Public servants with neoliberal leanings have to be removed from any position of influence.

Dog eat dog management of resources almost ensures, waste and eventual scarcity within the communities to which they may be vital over a long period.

As you suggest trade agreements will continue until they are no longer fit for purpose then the bargaining starts.
The less we have to buy in then the stronger our position provided we have stuff to sell that others want.

So long term projections of needs and surpluses are a cornerstone of economic and social planning.

“( We are less enthusiastic about the other prominent figure in NZ First Shane Jones is a ‘loose canon’ – and possibly is damaging NZ First we feel.”

It isn’t just a possibility. And it answers @Jacindafan’s question above: “When did it all change for Peters?”