The evolution of Politics

 

With the following I present a relatively brief analysis of how I see we have reached where we are now, politically. Key aspects I will gloss over only because they are presented as highlights to guide us on this journey of discovery.

Human society has, and is, dominated by those who lust for power and lust for money, or at least what goes for “money” at any point in time, whether it be rare precious metals such as gold or, as it is today, the currency that is in common use. Not everyone has these lusts but always a few do, and they impact the rest of us. Power is the desire to dominate others. And money can be used for the same purpose.

Early civilisation came about due to the need to cooperate in that, in an extremely dangerous world, one person is weak but if they join forces with others, they become strong. An added benefit of this cooperation is that one person could be much better at a certain task but not good at others and so you could barter resulting in mutual benefit. With the realisation that you had something to trade at a time others did not came the development of currency; an agreement to honour the value of something at a later date.

At the beginning of human civilisation power was expressed by physical might. Who ever was able to convince others, “warriors”,  especially if they had brawn, in order to force the rest, “serfs”, to submit to their will, they had the power and thus were named “leader”. But to keep control of the brawn the leader of the local hierarchy had to provide food and lodging to his warriors. The leader would then extort payment from the serfs and so started taxation.

For millennia battles were fought due to power struggles between adjacent leaders. Those leaders with the biggest egos and the best warriors carved out empires of ever-increasing size. But there was a downside in that the conquered commonly resented being subjects of the new leader. And so many an empire has failed due to rebellion by the masses subjugated by force.

“Politics” is the activities related to power relations between all the various groups that have leaders. As human society evolved so did the struggles between leaders and their followers. Those leaders who had the support of the subjects had a better chance of surviving rebellions. Similarly, those leaders who were able to negotiate agreements with other leaders without the use of force had a better chance of not being subjected to negative aspects of warfare. As time has progressed it has become more obvious to those who lust for power that it is better for their own health if they can convince the serfs to accept their rule willingly and so evolved “democracy”.

During the 1600’s John Locke, a philosopher and physician, formulated the ideas that make up what used to be “liberalism”. I say “used to be” only because his ideas have become perverted by those that are influenced by the writings of Karl Marks, a philosopher from the 19^th century. While Marx’s “class struggles” have been found to be false they still have an appeal even to this day. At the core though is his misunderstanding of the “free market” or as he and others preferred to call it, “Capitalism”.

The Free Market is the result of people cooperating amongst themselves to determine what a “fair” price is. When a buyer and seller can come to a mutual agreement that results in a transaction where both are satisfied with the result then trust is established. If someone else can come up with either a better product for the same price or an equivalent product at a lower price pressure is exerted on the competing seller to give the buyer fair value. When this trade is extended to money, “capital”, then we ended up with Capitalism whereby people “invest” in business opportunities with those that benefit the most people being the most successful. Because there was no coercion by leaders we ended up with a “free” market. But the lust for power and money always brings out the ugly side of commerce. If a seller can somehow eliminate any competition, no longer is the market “free”, even if the buyer is willing to pay what ever the price is as determined by the seller. This was the aspect of Capitalism that Marx focused on.

At its very essence Marxism divides society into two groups; the oppressed and the oppressors. Like most, if not all, simplistic representations of complex systems that is one that has not stood the test of time. Without fail those who overthrow the “oppressors” typically take on that role themselves. That is the biggest problem with the quest for power. As the old saying goes; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Marxism relies on the belief that a benevolent government can decide what is fair. But as history keeps reminding us, yet we never seem to learn, the bigger government gets the less it can be “fair”. While we would like to think we are all equal, we are not. Some of us work harder than others or are more skilled or smarter et cetera and so on. Plus, the opposite holds. That is where any system that thinks that “equality of outcome”, for example, will work is wrong as the human condition prevents that. It is for this reason Communism failed as has every other system that modelled itself after the false ideals of Marxism.

This brings me now to the early part of the twentieth century with the rise and fall of Fascism. As a form of Socialism, the core belief, as stated by Mussolini himself is “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”. With the “state” being government. Oh, and here are a couple of other quotes made by Mussolini: “We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them”, and “The press of Italy is free, freer than the press of any other country, so long as it supports the regime”. Of course, his type of socialism was better than the rest, so he made sure he crushed the opposition. Yet he is considered “right-wing”, all because he and other Fascists allowed limited free enterprise.

It is funny in an odd way that too often “free-enterprise” and “capitalism” are commonly bandied around when discussing political ideology. Those two phrases describe an economic system, not a political one. Politics is about the interrelationship of people whereas Capitalism is all about commerce. And that is where the Fascists saw the flaw in Marxism and tried to make, in their minds, a better system. Unfortunately for he and Hitler their lust for power got in the way resulting in World War 2 and their utter defeat.

Yet like a cancer socialism keeps rearing its ugly head. No, the analogue should be alcohol addiction. If kept in check you can lead a reasonably normal life. While government is encouraged it has not got to the stage where it becomes deadly. But it does slow down the economy as industry struggles under the oppression of over regulation.

One country that tried to make communism work but, unlike Russia, did realise before it was to late it could not sustain itself, is China. All because too much control of an economy by government leads to death of that economy. In 1987 China allowed the existence of free enterprise within its borders. They pulled back from controlling how goods were manufactured and traded and left that to the “capitalists”. The one control they did maintain was monetary policy by making sure that on the world stage, no matter how well the economy was doing within its own borders, outside China its goods would always be cheaper in the global marketplace. Without many realising it China has quietly cast aside the robes of Communism and replaced them with the robes of Fascism. They retained control over the people using big government but allowed commerce to take place under the general rules of free enterprise. The Phoenix has risen from the ashes of its destruction in the 20^th Century.

As history demonstrates with the many dynasties that have ruled their country the one thing the Chinese are good at is looking at the long game and learning from the past. Up until relatively recently it was standard practice to take control over others by force. It is now well established that is no longer the case. Subversion is the key to getting the quarry to submit willingly.

The recent US election is evidence of that, as was the election a while back here in Canada that saw Justin Trudeau put into power. First, what was required, was to subvert students in universities. These converts went out and subverted the following: media, our traditional collective conscience and moral guide; political parties; and industry. That is why our current mega corporations openly support China and socialism in general. They know that the only power framework that has the potential for really working is Fascism. But like Voldemort in the Harry Potter books, that name cannot be openly spoken by its adherents as to do so will give away the game that is afoot.