25 May 2012

How the State Always Wins

The insinuation often thrown around is that left-right politics is an illusion. This is a ruse designed to distract people from attaining a truly voluntary society. “Why?” one may ask. Because ideologies are different, some being completely opposed. While we have a system where the battlefield is substituted for the ballot box, both sides are locked in a struggle. Meanwhile, those who operate at the state or government level, reap the rewards of bureaucracy, forcing everyone else to endure broken promises of political, economic and social reform. Meanwhile career politicians milk the teat of society for every drop. In spite of this it doesn’t change the fact that the left and right are diametrically distinguishable:



The left believes in a planned economy, often enacted through Keynesianism, and the redistribution of wealth via progressivism. This results in property ownership being limited, or absolute collective ownership of assets. Where property is limited it comes with heavy tax obligations, and strong limits for passing wealth on through inheritance. At the same time the government is a bloated entity of large bureaucracy, and this can even result in a public sector that dwarfs the marketplace, or the government controlling all the means of production.

The right was founded upon the basis of laissez-faire, a system of free market interaction through voluntary exchanges of goods, primarily via monetary transactions. Individual property rights are essential to the success of this system, contract law being a key area that solidifies individual ownership of assets. Traditionally the right has always been for small bureaucracy, which often accompanies low taxation, and limited interference from the government into the lives of the citizen.

The initial diagram is a basic illustration of how the left-right paradigm operates. To fully expand upon this it is a good idea to go back to the start of the industrial revolution and see what the left and right represented then:


When the industrial revolution came about during the 18th century the left-right paradigm began to take shape. During feudal times a form of despotic rule gripped the western world, where a caste system was largely in place. If you were born a peasant, you would die a peasant. If you were born a noble or a lord, it was likely that you would die as one. The monarchy was at the top of the hierarchy, and would rely on advisors, while the church would usually have a great influence too.

When democracy began to take shape at the start of the industrial revolution two political ideologies were at its fore - conservatism and classical liberalism. The conservatives believed in limiting social change, and the old adage of “if it isn’t broken then don’t try to fix it” is very appropriate to understanding the logic here. There is indeed some credence to be had in the notion that change may not always be for the better. None-the-less it has always been difficult for many to tolerate the rigidity of conservatism.

Classical liberals however were socially progressive, and open to potential change within society. Many early feminists were classically liberal, as were other advocates of human rights, like those who believed in universal suffrage. But that is pretty much where the variation ended. Both classical liberals and conservatives believed in free markets, individual property and a small bureaucracy, at least far smaller than anything that we see today. Bureaucracy always incessantly grows though, and has done so ever since the start of the industrial revolution. There is one main reason for this - socialism.

The emergence of socialism coincided almost immediately with the industrial revolution, since workers were concerned with their ability to control the means of production. But this initially had a very limited influence, particularly since democracy was not immediately a right for every citizen. Initially voting was limited to those that owned property. This might seem harsh, but the reasoning behind this was that if the poor sections of society were able to vote, then they would increase the size of government through welfare and social programs, thus leading to a burden upon individual freedom through an over-reaching state. This kept the left-right paradigm similar in economic structure and property rights, as well as size of bureaucracy.

By the 20th century universal suffrage began to take hold across the western world. Once every person could vote socialism quickly took hold in Europe. Along with revolutions during the 20th century, the most famous and far-reaching being the Russian revolution of 1917, this led to a dramatic increase in the size and scope of government into the lives of the individual. In the rest of the west people went to ideological war through the medium of the ballot box, and the two-party system of statism benefited greatly.

Initially the two main parties in the UK were the Conservatives and the Liberal Party. This remained constant for a large part of the 19th and early 20th century. Labour, as the left-wing party opposition to the Conservatives, eventually became more popular than the Liberal Party. This led to a transformation of the Liberal Party to the Liberal Democrats, through a merger with the Social Democratic Party. Similar transformations occurred throughout the west, marking the death knell for classical liberalism as a popular philosophy, to what some call modern liberalism. This new movement bares little to no resemblance to classical liberalism though, since socialism has consistently succeeded in co-opting everything it touches over time. It is for this reason above all that socialists can never be underestimated.

During the 60’s, radicalisation across society was pervasive. This resulted in Marxist ideologues latching onto the civil rights movement, fanning the flames of social discontent so that the state could be co-opted. This changed the left of the political paradigm even further, into what was eventually called the New Left:


Socialism, by its very nature, pushed the political spectrum further to the left, leaving classical liberalism in the centre of the political paradigm, somewhere between left and right of centre, at least on social issues. As the new left came into being the doctrine of political correctness became a central focus. Nothing would be the same again, as the left was now radically opposed to the right in every way, even compared to classical liberalism.

The fact is that socialism is an unbeatable force when it exists in a democracy. Why? Because the ballot box always allows the left to regain power at a later point. From here the left will increase the burden of government debt over time. When the right gets back into power it is nigh on impossible to make any changes, since they are still opposed by the left in political spaces. Thus national debt cannot be decreased without ardent opposition by leftist supporters, like unions, civil rights groups, public sector workers, university academics, and all those living on the handouts of the state, funded by the redistribution of productivity via taxation.

What’s more, this state of affairs is exactly what the left wants. Collapse of capitalism is what Karl Marx himself envisioned, but unlike his interpretation it is not a natural occurrence due to market imperfections, but an agenda to crush free market interaction, stifling it through bureaucracy and socialist economic policies. One such example of this deliberate attempt to collapse capitalism is the Cloward-Piven strategy. By overloading the government with debt, and then relying on radicals to protest when any cutbacks are attempted, it is impossible to reduce the size and scope of government, which means that the right makes little progress. That is why national debt has been on the rise for decades, and after the deadlock raising the debt ceiling in the US in the summer of 2011, there seems to be no way to end this marginalisation of fiscal conservatism.

The left doesn’t care about what is sustainable. It is an ideology based on irrationality, where base human emotions such as animosity and jealousy are fine-tuned into a political engine of unstoppable erosion. The ideology is very attractive to people who are unable to rise above mediocrity, or too lazy to try. This group finds it hard to accept that their own shortcomings might also be based on their lack of ability. So the finger of social oppression is pointed everywhere, as long as it leads to more collectivism, with the eventual culmination of collapse of the whole of society via a bloated and tyrannical state, all because ‘needs’ are deified. But in truth it is people of ability that elevate human progress, and whether we like it or not most of use will never be great enough to provide anything more than a fleeting contribution. Stifle this and the whole human race suffers.

There is only one way to truly stop the left from winning basically every battle ever since the introduction of democracy. The state must be marginalised. Then every ideology can be free to express itself, as long as there is a respect for non-aggression and property rights. That is not to say that collectivists cannot share their property via agreed contractual terms, or co-operatively operate the means of production in a free market. But it is the left that wishes to restrict everyone else’s expression, and they do this through endless absolutism.

There is no doubt however that presently even the most strong-willed fiscal conservative struggles with handling the reigns of power once they reach the state level – it is like being given Sauron’s ring. And who always wins when the ring of statism is donned? Why the state of course, and those who control this entity. Even though the left always wins, and the right always loses, the result of this is always totalitarian. Many bureaucrats know full well how the battle of left and right feeds their voracious appetites for power.

All the more reason though to reduce the reach of the state, allowing people to live in a society built upon mutually beneficial interaction. Statist coercion however is the true distraction, not the left-right paradigm. Anyone who tells you that left and right is an illusion, or that an issue is apolitical, is most likely well aware that the left always beats back the right eventually:

“Any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right-wing will become left-wing.over time” ~ John O’Sullivan.

11 comments:

  1. I think it's possible that much of this debate is merely a confusion of terminologies.

    The dichotomy of Democrat and Republican can rightly be said to have little difference between them. The federal deficit always increases, regulations continue to mount, illegal immigration is allowed to continue, bad laws are never repealed, etc.

    The confusion emerges when one attempts to describe this situation as "Left and right don't matter." The proper way to understand it is, these are political parties that claim to represent certain ideas. The structures of ideas, i.e. ideologies, exist independently of any political party. It's an old-fashioned "the map is not the territory" fallacy.

    Conservatism is not defined by whatever the Republican party platform is in a given year. In fact, the Republican platform will claim to promote conservatism, which is an admission that conservatism is a structure of ideas separate from the party itself.

    Notice how nobody ever makes the patently false claim that "Conservatism and socialism are no different and don't matter." It's always formulated with the ultra-vague terms "left and right."

    So, I think this is worth exploring. Force people to get specific rather than using generic terminology. This is probably the most effective way to blow up this increasingly popular canard. I believed it for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Notice how nobody ever makes the patently false claim that "Conservatism and socialism are no different and don't matter." It's always formulated with the ultra-vague terms "left and right."

      This is precisely true. What I advocate is going after the state itself. That way all ideologies can exist, as long as they respect non-aggression and property rights.

      Of course, the left doesn't like the idea of this, and thus aggresses on everyone else as a amtter of course. Socialists are totalitarian at their core. They believe that people of ability are oppressive, and therefore should surrender to the will of the needs of others. They would never allow individual free market interaction to occur.

      All of this is highly misandric, and is incompatible with the MRM. What's more, socialists in all their forms ALWAYS co-opt everything over time. The left has eventually won every battle since the start of universal suffrage, and will continue to do so due to a flawed system of democracy.

      They are a tyrannical group that will never allow individuals to live freely, quite ironic given that MGTOW is at the centre for many in this movement. Allowing leftists to have a voice in the MRM will not end well - it never does, and if this article doesn't show someone why the I guess nothing will.

      Delete
  2. One of the perfect current examples of how the left is destroying a nation is Greece. Over the last couple of decades, the society in Greece has been getting more and more socialist, to the point now where almost half the population are government employees and nearly all are entitled to some special benefit or another.

    Unfortunately, the government of Greece cannot continue to afford the monumental costs associated with such a welfare state, since the nation no longer has people who are willing or capable of generating wealth of their own.

    So, in order to prevent the collapse of the entire nation, the government started cutting back (mostly as a stipulation for bailout funds from the EU, but that's beside the point) its spending, to the point where the country was crippled with protests and demonstrations against the cutbacks for nearly a year.

    And now, the government that was supporting the austerity programme to help bring Greece's spending and debt back under control has been replaced with a leftist party which has decided that austerity isn't the way to go.

    Greece will collapse on itself if it doesn't change its ways, and it's only a matter of time.

    France has just done something similar. France has been pulling itself out of the mire of debt and recession thanks to the 'belt tightening' of Sarkozy, but they just elected an openly socialist President who has vowed to open the purse strings again, and that cannot be a good thing. France is the second most powerful economy in Europe, and I don't think the EU can afford to have it follow Greece's example.

    I would just offer that it's a damned good thing that the UK stayed the hell out of the Eurozone. The pound is still valuable, which is not something I forsee for the Euro.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you are describing here is very much what the Cloward-Piven strategy was implemented to achieve, which is designed to speed up the perceived crash of capitalism that Marx believed to inevitable - overload the system over time and then it will result in 100% GDP relating to the public sector.

      You can't defeat this in this present paradigm, and leftists are not interested in letting people have their own choices in life.

      Delete
  3. Wow! This is so going to be translated onto my blog!
    Hope there's no problem!
    RockingMrE, you rock!

    Best regards from Romania.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. Are you going to link to it, or are you going to literally translate it to another language?

      Delete
    2. Of course I'll link to the original (meaning here) and I'm going to literally translate it into Romanian.

      Delete
    3. And here's the translation: http://vilo13.blogspot.ro/2012/06/cum-castiga-statul-de-fiecare-data.html#

      Delete
    4. Thank you Lucian. I'm honoured by your effort to translate my work into another language :-)

      Delete
    5. You're welcome. There are more to come.
      One correction of I may: It's "laissez-faire", not "laissez-fares" :)

      Have a great week-end.

      Delete
    6. Yes, you're right. I just changed it. I usually spell that right, but I didn't check it before I posted this. Thanks for the heads up.

      Delete