[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: How the Political Class Exploits the Economic Class As a candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination, it's my job to present the Libertarian message to the American people. It is a very important job, but there is a problem. I'm not sure most Libertarians are clear as to what our message really is. Is it only that we want less government? Good grief, even Bill Clinton says the age of big government is over! Is it that we just want lower taxes and less economic regulations? Steve Forbes is saying the same thing, and has the money to get himself heard. Is it that "government doesn't work"? I suspect all the Republican contenders for the Presidency would agree, although they might define the word "work" a bit differently from how we do. As a matter of fact, government works quite well for some people. Is our message simply that individuals have rights that should not be violated? Perhaps, but most people don't understand why they shouldn't be violated. It is frustrating to hear establishment politicians from the incumbent parties use libertarian rhetoric to hide statist policies. With the exception of ending the drug war, most libertarian issues are copied by establishment politicians on the campaign trail--and few voters understand just how hypocritical they are. Are we doomed to saying, "But we really mean it, and we will go a little further toward freedom than those guys?" Somehow I can't see such a slogan being listed up there with "Give me liberty or give me death." So, I repeat, what is our message? I think the time has come for us to push beyond simply talking about the virtues of free markets and the practical superiority of individual freedom. I think it is time we tell people about the underlying nature of the state. A little over 150 years ago, a French writer named Charles Compte had a profound insight. He said the real "class struggle" was not between rich and poor, or capitalists and workers, or nobility and commoners. Compte argued that the real conflict was between the "economic class" and the "political class." In his view, the economic class was made up of people who gain wealth through "economic means"--production, work, and trade. By contrast, the political class obtains wealth parasitically, through "political means"--confiscation, taxation, and other forms of coercion. Charles Compte argued that these two classes are inevitably in conflict. The political class needs the economic class just as a parasite needs a host. The economic class, however, does not need the political class, and would be better off without it. Later writers modified this approach somewhat. John Calhoun coined the phrase "net tax payers and net tax eaters" to describe the economic and political classes. Modern theorists talk about "net beneficiaries" and "net losers" while considering things like future expectations and opportunity costs. Whatever the details, the underlying theory is clear: the political class exploits the economic class through its control of the state. If this is true, why does the economic class put up with it? By all measures, the overwhelming majority of every society is made up of "net losers" in the political shell game played by the politicians. Why sn't the economic class overthrown the exploiters? I suggest the main reason this hasn't happened is because the political class recognizes its "class interest" in maintaining the size and power of the state, while the economic class does not recognize the depths of its exploitation. At the same time, the political class of every country uses some combination of four strategies to prevent the economic class from understanding where its true interests are. The First Strategy of the political class is intimidation and force . When all else fails, the system rests on its ability to use violence against people who resist being exploited. Once people can defy the authority of the state with impunity, it ceases to function. This is why the larger and more exploitive a government becomes, the more intent the political class is on gun control. The Second Strategy is to use mythology. Mythology is the rationale for why the rulers should rule, and the political class should be permitted to continue to exploit the economic class. Excuses include everything from the "divine right of kings" to tradition, the metaphysical existence of the state, the need for racial purity, the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the illusion of majoritarian rule. Ayn Rand, in her book For the New Intellectual, described "Attila and the Witchdoctor." Attila represents the early political classes that relied on force alone. Eventually, the political class would be worn down by the constant struggle to retain power. The witchdoctor represented the myth-makers. What the witchdoctor provided was an inexpensive method of gaining "willing cooperation" from much of the economic class. At one time, myth-making witchdoctors wore bones in their noses and shook rattles. Today, they teach in major universities or write for television. The clothes and trappings have changed, but not the function. The Third Strategy is divide and conquer. If people can be induced to spend their time attacking other members of the economic class, the real exploiters will be left alone. It is no accident that state power expands with the level of social conflict based on race, religion, language, sexual orientation, etc. One way this is encouraged is by handing out privileges to special groups, which I will discuss in a moment. Beneath hypocritical statements by members of the political class about tolerance and civility, is a cynical policy of setting group against group while making everyone feel dependent on the political class for defense. The Fourth Strategy is that of co-optation. There are three variations of this. The First Variation is general services. All members of the economic class receive something. While they pay far more than the value of what they get, they do get something. Mountains of propaganda are issued to tell everyone how wonderful the services are that they receive, in the hope that everyone will believe they can "win" at the game of getting something for nothing -- that is, something paid for by others. The value of such services is generally far overrated, but there is always enough that most people would feel the loss if the services were taken away. At the first sign of unhappiness by the economic class, the rulers like to threaten to take away the few crumbs the real producers receive in return for carrying the weight of society on their backs. So no matter how badly treated each member of the economic class is, there is always the threat that things can be made even worse. The Second Variation is segment co-optation. Narrow special interests are offered the opportunity (in many cases the illusion) of joining the political class. The competition to become "net gainers" is fierce and the struggle relentless. Every group becomes evaluated by its clout. Clout is measured by the size of the interest group, multiplied by its intensity (a function of money, volunteer hours, or guaranteed votes). In order for a group to become net beneficiaries of state power, it becomes necessary either to further exploit the economic class or throw a low-clout group out of the political class. This sets the special interest groups at each other's throats, and generally dilutes the clout of the economic class as a whole. One of the problems facing the modern political class is that many groups are becoming more and more intense about joining the political class, while being less and less willing to accept lesser benefits. In addition, groups are less and less willing to accept phony promises in the name of the "general welfare." They want specific, direct and immediate benefits to themselves. The Third Variation is direct_co-optation. This is where dangerous individuals such as writers and leaders of high-clout groups are simply "bought off". In the movie, "Braveheart," one of the most important scenes showed the Scottish nobles selling out their lower class soldiers in exchange for lands, titles, and other rewards. For King Edward of England, it was much easier to buy off the leaders than to meet the demands of all of the Scots. Direct co-optation is a very powerful technique and remarkably insidious. Without even knowing it, people find their groups are used to advance the interests of the political class. Obvious examples of this are the AARP, NAACP, NOW and the NRA. One of the reasons why it is so hard to make serious change is that most people don't realize the nature of the struggle. They are easily distracted into fighting for segment benefits, fighting with other potential rivals for a bigger share of the loot, or by the fear that what little they receive will be taken away. Many are also intimidated by the government's threat of force. Yet the political system is in trouble. The myths are no longer working. In 1964, 75% of the population believed the government "usually does the right thing." Today, it is less than 20%. Government officials in many states are becoming terrified of armed resistance when they try to expropriate property. The fully-informed jury movement is catching on like wild fire. Juries are now refusing to support the enforcement of laws that have been used to exploit the economic class. The greatest challenge to the statist mythology is coming from libertarians who deny that the political class has any moral authority to exploit the economic class. Is it any wonder that the political class is anxious to redefine the word "libertarian" into some harmless desire for slightly less government plus the right to smoke pot and read dirty books? The conflict between the economic and political classes is intensifying. The leaders of the political class know what is at stake -- their continued existence as the power class. Much of the economic class remains ignorant of the nature of the struggle, but every day more victims of statist oppression are awakened. So in answer to the question, "What is our message?" It must be to inform people about how the political class exploits them and what must be done. We must be clear as to why it is so important to stand up for the liberties of all people, and not be suckered into fighting other segments of the economic class. We must show politically unsuccessful interest groups that their quest for a share of the loot is delusional and is only delaying the day when their exploitation can be ended. But perhaps most of all, we must emphasize over and over that all individuals have a right to be free. Ultimately this is a moral battle. As long as people accept the myths of statism, they will remain enslaved. It is time we end the exploitation and the suffering of all the victims of statism. I dare Steve Forbes to say that. An oldie but a goodie. -- YertleTurtle.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: YertleTurtle (#0)
An oldie but a goodie. Thanks for sharing, it is new to me. The four strategies are easy to recognize.
Pickett was off like a shot and called out to his men: "Up, men, and to your posts! Don't forget today that you are from Old Virginia!" July 3, 1863.
No one explained this process more succinctly than the late Samuel Edward Konkin III. In his "Introduction to Libertarian Ruling Class Theory," published in New Libertarian Notes #28 (1973), he concluded: The State is the main means by which people live by plunder; the Market, in contradistinction, is the sum of human action of the productive. The State, by its existence, divides society into a plundered class and a plundering class. The State has historically been directed by those who gain most by its existence -- the "upper class," Ruling Class, Higher Circles, or "conspiracy." The Higher Circles will fight to keep their privileged status, and have done so, against libertarians seeking their overthrow and the restitution of their plunder to those from whom it was taken. Politicians operate as "gladiators" in the aptly named Political Arena to settle disputes among the Higher Circles (which are not monolithic).
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||