The only way to end political corruption is to END GOVERNMENT!

May 12, 2009

Things have become so bad with regard to political corruption that the Torygraph has been forced to turn against it’s traditional ally…

Senior Conservatives have subsidised their country estates at taxpayers’ expense, with the upkeep of swimming pools, clearance of moats and even the salaries of domestic staff, all claimed on parliamentary expenses.

They even have a nice little video of Sir Micheal Spicer’s helipad expense claim.

The truth is that every level of government is corrupt. We’re from Doncaster where it is well known that anyone can get planning permission if you give the right colour envelope to the right person. The so called Donnygate scandal didn’t even begin to show the real picture, but Donny is far from unusual. The truth is that democracy no longer exists in the UK (if it ever did). National and local elections provide little more than a veneer of legitimacy to a system that works exclusively for the needs of a privileged minority at the expense of the expendable majority.

Government, in all forms, and any pretence at ‘democracy’ collapsed under the weight of decadence and greed a long time ago. For the past 30 years people have been forced to vote for the ‘lesser evil’ rather than vote for who they feel best repesents their interests (not that any political party even pretends to represent the interests of the poor). Reform is now a horse so dead that even Charles Saatchi would have trouble flogging it. But if we take a closer look at the mechanisms of government there is good reason for optimism.

The sole purpose of government is to keep the socio-economic machine running smoothly. All modern governments place emphasis on the economic at the expense of the social because they serve the purposes of the mercantile, capitalist machine. Capitalism is a faith based system which is more religious than scientific and, as such, it needs to rely on all of the coercive tools of government – schools, media/propaganda, wages/factories, law/prisons, etc. – in order to survive. The good news is that every carrot needs a stick and capitalism has also been forced to build a half-decent socio-economic network to help placate people.

Thanks mainly to advances in communications technology this network is largely self-sufficient – most fuck-ups are caused by managers and bureaucrats who are now largely obsolete, but the jobs are kept in place to keep the middle-class busy. Imagine if we take control of these systems to level the playing field. Imagine, for instance, if the dole offices and the nationlised banks were utilised for the control and supply of a social wage.

It’s not only bureaucrats and MPs who’s jobs are now obsolete thanks to technology; capitalism has provided us with the seeds of it’s own demise!

small_revolution_fist

Advertisements

14 Responses to “The only way to end political corruption is to END GOVERNMENT!”

  1. Charles said

    I typed in “end government” into Google and your article is one of the first that popped up. It started off on the right track then made this erroneous claim:

    “Capitalism is a faith based system which is more religious than scientific and, as such, it needs to rely on all of the coercive tools of government – schools, media/propaganda, wages/factories, law/prisons, etc. – in order to survive.”

    This statement demonstrates a fallacy sewn deep into the psyche of current conventional wisdom; it assumes that we have been living under a capitalist system. The above statement is self-defeating because it shows how a handful of institutions are funded by taxation/theft, which is a contradiction to a purely voluntary-funded capitalist system. As soon as money is forced from individuals and funneled elsewhere, we no longer live in a capitalist system. We now live in a statist system.

    When you claim that the current system “has provided us with the seeds of its own demise,” you are pointing out that statism has self-destructed like it always and inevitably does. The question at hand is whether or not we replace it with another collective system of force (do-as-we-know-is-best-or-else!) or do we replace it with a capitalistic system of voluntary interaction between all individuals?

  2. Class War - Barnsdale Brigade said

    Capitalism is nothing if not opportunistic, this is what helps it to survive the rigours of it’s own excesses. In times of plenty it preaches a laissez faire model to excuse itself from state intervention – although it still uses the state’s propaganda & legal systems to ensure a good supply of wage slaves. In times of recession (now) it uses the state to protect it’s own interests (billions to bail out bankers at the expense of the poor). Capitalism is a system that privatises profit and socialises loss.
    The ‘State’ and ‘Capitalism’ are in no way separate entities; the state is both carrot and stick used to protect and promote capitalism – any benefits to the poor are usually concessionary (due to unrest) or illusionary. Which is why anarchists oppose both capitalism and the state.

  3. Charles said

    I think we agree on the reality but disagree on the terminology. What you call “capitalism” is what I would call “corporatism” because it operates hand-in-hand with state coercion.

    In a truly free world without coercion, what word would you use to describe the concept of individuals voluntarily trading goods and services between one another?

    I ask because your definition of “capitalism”, accurate or not, is the status quo’s definition and it has been demonized. Describing yourself as a capitalist is no longer acceptable, and describing yourself as an anarchist invokes a lot of eye-rolling and a false sense of unrealistic idealism.

  4. Class War - Barnsdale Brigade said

    We would say that ‘Capital’ is any form of wealth capable of being employed in the production of more wealth. This, in turn, gives rise to the notion of ‘profit’. The motivating force of capital is ‘growth’. Therefore capitalism is an economic system that relies on the blind accumulation of wealth (growth/greed) as it’s central – and only – ethos. This is what makes capitalism socially and environmentally carcinogenic – or as Edward Abbey said “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

    We can have systems of exchange that exist not for the generation of capital, but for the generation of ‘potentiality’ – the argument gets tricky here because existing political ideologies, both left and right, do not offer an alternative yardstick to capital and we’re not the most academic of groups. What we need is an exchange system that recognises that every object has an environmental ‘price’ and that the only objects worthy of exchange are those that feed the human organism (either physically or spiritually), i.e. those that allow each of us to reach our full potential.

    The first steps to creating a non-proprietary economic system would be to remove all legal restrictions with regard to information/knowledge and to everyone give free and equal access to the land. After that the possibilities are endless 🙂

  5. Charles said

    It’s interesting to read your response. Earlier, you explained how our current system of “capitalism” and state intervention was the problem. Though our terminology differed, I agreed and asked for the word you would use to describe the concept of free individuals voluntarily trading goods and services between one another in a stateless society. It would seem by your response that you don’t actually embrace free, voluntary interaction between individuals based on their own, personal value scales. Instead, it seems you want to permit a different system of exchange where the value of objects is declared by some indescribable process/entity that weighs each object according to its “environmental price”.

    I think I understand your position, and I know precisely why this process of assigning an “environmental price” is so indescribable. Your basic problem is that you can’t come up with an agreed upon environmental/human value scale for all objects because each individual values things differently. What is beneficial for my spirit and my personal potential may be utterly worthless for most others. So does that mean that I am not allowed to freely exchange for this item? Does it mean that this item will be somehow taxed, limited or regulated? If so, who decides these rules?

    I know you don’t want to set up a legislature, government, council or any other entity that creates and enforces these rules. As an anarchist, I know you recognize coercion as the root of our problems. So what are you going to do when I freely trade objects that are not deemed “worthy of exchange” because they don’t “feed the human organism either physically or spiritually” or have anything to do with “each of us to reaching our full potential?”

  6. Charles said

    I’m interested in continuing this dialog and await your response.

  7. Class War - Barnsdale Brigade said

    Hello Charles,

    Sorry we didn’t reply sooner – been gardening 😉

    Firstly we’d like to thank you for (re)awakening the individualist leanings of some of our merry little band – the position that we would tender (collectively, our positions vary to some degree) in response to your question seem to reflect most closely those of Renzo Novatore and Emile Armand. So for a fuller and more eloquent answer we would suggest Novatore’s ‘Toward the Creative Nothing’ and Armand’s ‘Property’ or ‘Life & Society’.

    We will write something about the expropriation of natural wealth, the commons and the positive environmental effects of self-governance as soon as possible, but it won’t be for a few days. You’ve also inspired an idea for a new blog. Talk to you soon 🙂

  8. Charles said

    How does one expropriate natural wealth without using force to strip it from non-compliant individuals who claim ownership through homesteading or labor? In other words, if I disagree with your ideology, how are you going to make me relinquish what I claim as my personal property?

    And to repeat my earlier question:

    What are you going to do when I freely trade objects that are not deemed “worthy of exchange” because they don’t “feed the human organism either physically or spiritually” or have anything to do with “each of us reaching our full potential?”

    Sorry to press the issue, but these are foundational questions. I’m not looking for a full or eloquent answer, just a concise and logical response. After all, they are not complicated questions. I am only asking how you will handle individuals who disagree.

  9. Class War - Barnsdale Brigade said

    Actually when we mentioned we were going to talk about the ‘exproriation of natural wealth’ we were talking about the historical expropriation which has already taken place…

    The wealth of the current capitalist class (and the last 500 years of Western history)is the product of the continual expropriation of natural wealth from less well armed societies – land and resources have been stolen using the bible, the gun, disease and the law. County after country, cultural subsistence has been forcibly replaced with colonial subservience (often, as in India, leading to the deaths of millions of people). Colonialism was an armed blag and today’s rich, at the very least, are guilty of receiving stolen goods.

    Claims of ‘ownership’ of the land and natural resources are spurious to say the least – unless we’re actually expected believe in dominion theory, divine providence or some other dream concocted by the elite to justify their crimes. The land was once held in common and ‘commoning’ – of land, knowledge and the means of production – is where we find an alternative to capitalism. As we have seen with the Pirate Bay it is a question of ‘access’ versus ‘ownership’.

    If the land is held in common by the people who inhabit it they beome less likely to shit where they eat – it can (and historically does…) happen, but the consequences are more immediate and more likely to be felt by the guilty party.

    Really got to go, but will expand on our answer shortly…

  10. Charles said

    What will you do with those peaceful individuals who respectfully disagree over the ideology and do not comply?

  11. Class War - Barnsdale Brigade said

    Whoa there, Charles, seems to us that this whole argument has gone arse about tit.

    We’re not interested in utopias and the usual ideophilic bullshit. To us anarchy is about living a life – here and now – that is a critique of an unjust society. You’re the one who said capitalism without government would be a good place to live.

    Capitalism – using wealth to create wealth – is all about profit and growth. The more wealth an individual hoardes, the greater their potential for more wealth and the more powerful they become. This systematic greed relies on the protection of wealth – and whether that be through govenment or gangsters (through force of law or force of arms) it’s a dog eat dog system. Also it is a system that says everyone has to play the game in order to maximise profits. This isn’t an abstract belief – it’s fact based on 500 years of history and the events that follwed the collapse of the Soviet system. So, Charles, in your capitalist utopia, “What will you do with those peaceful individuals who respectfully disagree over the ideology and do not comply?”

    It’s a speculative and idle (and frankly dumb) question that can only be answered through historic realisation. But like muppets we thought we’d give it a go.

    We were trying to suggest that to create an economic system that is less open to corruption it would have to be a non-proprietary, not profit system based on mutual aid and routed in the notion of a global land, resources and knowledge commons. A system of each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.

    This system would be based on ‘consent’ rather than ‘coercion’ and would grow through example. That’s not to say that there wouldn’t be antagonism (getting rid of the state is not going to be pretty whatever you decide to replace it with), but it wouldn’t be looking to enforce any form of ideology – unlike your capitalist system which uses every trick in the book. This does suggest that we believe that humans are fundementally capable of reason and cooperation (we see it in our everyday lives), but that’s as utopian as we ever want to get 🙂

  12. Class War - Barnsdale Brigade said

    Actually, to be truly anarchist we’d probably see non-universal forms of govenment decided upon by local populations to suit geographic and cultural needs.

    So we could visit your non-governmental capitalist federal state and you could pop in to our Open Source Mutualist envlave 🙂

    Ahh, utopias – fun but pointless.

  13. Charles said

    Be careful that you don’t blur the line between statist capitalism and a purely free market society where individuals voluntary exchange goods and services for their mutual benefit. You are misrepresenting my position by tying it to government coercion. While it is true that the present system of “capitalism” is a complete nightmare, it is false to assert that our current debacle is the result of a voluntary system of exchange. You have already pointed out a fraction of the ways in which we do not live in a free market environment when you spoke of taxes, bailouts, protectionism, the socialization of losses, etc. The world has yet to see a society absent of legalized plunder and coercion. So, pointing to the historical record to show the results of a voluntary system of exchange is an error.

    After asking the same question three times, I will unfortunately have to ask it yet again. I asked, “What will you do with those peaceful individuals who respectfully disagree over the ideology and do not comply?” This question was meant to be answered in the context of already having your ideal society successfully installed (sorry, I should have clarified earlier). So, considering this, pretend a boy is born and raised in your society and as a young man, he begins to disagree with the rules of the society. Let’s say he wants to freely trade items that are not deemed “worthy of exchange”, and let’s say that he finds other individuals in the same position wanting to transact for this item as well. Are they free to make the exchange, or not?

    In your previous response, you quickly reversed the question back to me as if it would be equally as frustrating to answer. In the voluntary system of exchange I am striving to advocate, the answer is an obvious “Yes” — after all, they are peacefully interacting. However, based on your previous comment, your answer must be “No”. Well, how are you going to prevent this exchange from taking place? Who decides what is “worthy of exchange”? How are you going to monitor which items are being traded? Who intervenes? How do you handle the honest, peaceful individuals trading these “unworthy” items who cannot be convinced that it is wrong to do so?

    Your harsh realization is that you cannot stop these peaceful individuals without the threat of violence. Without realizing it, what you are actually advocating is more government. I know you don’t want to admit it and would probably opt to “educate” these individuals instead, but not everyone born into your society will agree with its perspective. So, will you threaten these honest and peaceful individuals with violence if they don’t abandon their home, or what?

    I ask these questions and make the above assertions because I seek to refine our knowledge and our aim. If you can effectively answer *all* of the above questions and counter my statements with logical reasoning, I will gladly concede and fight alongside you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: