struggle against society: solidarity and tradition vs. individualism and consumption

It is in the advantage of the state to control a society that accepts the political and institutional system unconditionally and voluntarily. The only possibility to achieve this status is by imposing a totalitarian state structure, but the investments costs and risks a long the way to unite state and society are too high and often not within any realistic reach. The costs to divide society with a class-based system and breaking social cohesion and unity on the other hand are much lower and not as risky.

The capital has no interest in and certainly no benefit from a strong community. Capital has no means at its disposal to unite society under one common ‘commercial uniform’ and it has very few interest to gain from it. We could say that the “grand-capital” has a certain and reasonable advantage in the case of a single “general will to buy or sell” from the mass-consumption’s point of view, because the consummation is predictable and easier to correct for grand-capitalists. Internationalization of markets and globalization of the economy have resulted in global marketing and the ability to ‘scan’ markets to find out what people really want, even if they don’t know it themselves. But there is no such thing of a single communal “Volksgeist” or “general will”. Mass conviction happens after all on a latent lever through marketing, not through an expressed and determined social course. The capital’s investments to emancipate people from social pressure and communal conscience are investments in heroic ethos. They give the people incentives to think for themselves, to chose for themselves and to improve themselves. The effect is double: man discovers himself and invests in himself, so he doesn’t invest in corresponding with the social model and the capital profits from man’s emancipation and the contagious nature of individualism. So capital does not need to invest in a revolt against the social uniform, because it is a mere consequence of individual consciousness. The costs are low and the benefits are high, both for grand and small capital. But how do we fight the unfreedom of freedom? And why?

In a liberal free-market economy both state and capital pump money and resources in each other to benefit equally from a better outcome. Social corrections via socialism are maintained as a social cover against revolutions from within the different social layers. To legitimate themselves in society they both use the liberal strategy to grant social benefits of the system to those subjects who voluntarily “collaborate” with the system, so they can project an easy cost-benefit analysis that makes clear that is in the best interest of the subjects to choose the side of capital and state. This is the very core of statist liberalism. The state grants capital subsidies to find new strategic markets, also to the interest of tax-addicted states.  For example, the only true argument for the political left to legalize drugs is to impose taxes on it and create new social margins who keep the socialist statists in position. The profit gained from these “new markets” disappears into the pockets of the capitalists and the taxes from it feed the ever hungry state. In a liberal free-market economy, both the state and the capital are the antagonists who run the show. Society lives under the constant pressure of consumerism and is the victim to the perverse games and gambles of grand-capital and state interests. Since states own the violence monopoly they can enforce these interest with military power, which results in war. Wars for scarce goods to be precise, not general interest. Of course the grand-capital will voluntarily invest in the state’s violence monopoly to be able to exploit these ‘newly conquered markets’. A war is a market process in three stages: the conflict of scarce goods, the violent statist intervention and the artificial redistribution of these scarce goods. In a liberal society, grand capital, diplomacy, bankers, usurers, interest slavery, stock brokers and credit trusts play the sickening dance of extortion, playing with credit money that doesn’t exist, trade shares that are not real and gamble with thousands of people’s jobs and futures. Is this fair? Is this “freedom”? Their aim is to profit and to destroy those who claim profit, to provoke envy amongst people and communities, to create conflict and harvest from the horrors that come with it. To blind the social subjects and pollute their minds with the unfreedom of freedom, the dictatorship of consumerism. Small capital is perhaps liberalism’s worst victim. Because they can’t reach the fruits of the grand-capitalists’ game for they are no match. They are systematically the victim of globalized bullying and static interference. The complete competition is prevented and destroyed by both the states and the world capital. Because state and grand capital both have sworn a horrid pact to watch each other’s back and help destroy all those who claim their power. Enemy states are eliminated on the international markets with trade embargo’s. Enemy enterprises are destroyed by high taxes and unnecessary import regulations. It is the perverse game of liberalism, and we let it all go by, because we perceive it as our freedom.

High taxes are easier to bare for elaborate capital than modest, through which the biggest money masses will be maintained and the competition is forced to either disappear or defect. Can this be considered freedom? Who dares saying the free market is honest and free? Nobody does. It is “rational” and “fair”. Well then, in a free market where the rational and fair law is the law of dishonesty and unfreedom, I wish not to defend its existence.

Another tactic is that of libertarianism. Herein the most important protagonist is the moderate capitalist. To a certain extent the libertarian, but definitely the anarcho-capitalist, reject the image of the ‘homo economicus’, the economic man. The human computer that makes but rational choices based on mathematical cost-benefit analysis. He rejects the mantra of globalization, because it is enforced on the free market, and therefore not to be labeled ‘a liberty’. Globalization only leads to greed, envy, conflict, war and more and more inflation. Anarcho-capitalists focus on the here. On the direct environment. Our choices are not based on a cold cost-benefit analysis as if it were a mathematical equation. Choices are made by our preferences and our wants. If our parks and wilderness is dear to us, we will refuse to accept the cost-benefit analytic outcome that replacing our parks with factory would be the right thing to do, because it stimulates the economy and provides jobs and wealth. No. We should chose what we cherish and hold dear, not what is best!

Where liberalism has its roots in the protestant and Jewish tradition of profit and optimal situations, I believe the core of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism can be found in epicuristic hedonism, the strife towards satisfaction and a peace of mind, the ‘ataraxia’. A libertarian thinks in patterns of autarchic coexistence in concentric and subsidiary circles. The purpose is to make sure that all the subjects of the different subsidiary social layers can benefit from the autarchy and therefore maintain themselves. And we are truly talking about the subjects themselves, not from within the social structure they live in. It is important that the subject is seen as an ego, before he is seen as a part of the social entity.

The consumer does not have a right to the world. The role of the state as a global police force and collector (thieve) of scarce goods would be impossible, or this were the case. An important insight on this matter is the proportionality between the economic freedom and personal freedom. Monopolies, interest slavery and usury are the exponents of the economic freedom and personal freedom. We are / should be able to voluntarily distance ourselves from our personal freedom, but not to the expense of the economic freedom of our neighbour. I believe our personal freedom is of a greater importance than our economic freedom. I think the right of the African farmer to be able to supply his own African market with his own African goods is far more important than my right to export my products to the African market, even if they are of better quality and lower in price. However I can and I have the right to, I wish not to. Because I cherish the sympathy for the African entrepreneur. Than what about the African market? Do I deny them to buy cheaper products of a better quality? This problem is self-solving. If the Africans buy nothing but African products, it will give the African economy incentives to grow and therefore innovate and therefore flourish. This will lower prices eventually and increase the product quality. The only thing that can help the African economy is the African economy. Import and Export are killing Africans and Asians on a daily basis. Through hunger and war. The free market doesn’t feed. It kills and creates greed and envy and racism and global tension. The OWN market feeds and nothing but the own market. It might be contradictory that we should stimulate national/regional/ethnic markets, but at the same time invest in heroic ethos, which gives people incentives to look farther than their own community. It might be. But what if we can make the people see that their future, prosperity and happiness lies but within their community? The optimal situation would be to give people both the intellectual and financial choice to chose freely. And make them choose for their communities as freely. And remember that economic freedom means autarchy, not anarchy. Reject the thieving liberal cost-benefit addict and embrace the ideal of the indifferent epicurist, who only cares about what he cherishes, not what would be best for him and his associates. Let us bring down the economy for the shareholders and turn it into the economy for ourselves. It will end all conflict, end all political farces and end the dictatorship of lobbies and diplomacy throughout the world. Let us reject all taxes, great and small, and tax only the things we personally dislike to our conscience. Eco-taxes and consumption taxes (polluter pays principle). I believe all other taxes are unjust, unfair and immoral. They have no legitimate basis and can only be interpreted as an attack on our will and freedom and a weapon of state and grand capital they don’t legitimately own and impose. The economic crisis and social challenges we face today are nothing but the recoil of this perverse so-called “liberal” world. We’re experiencing an ‘overstretch economy’ who is imploding towards her true subsidiary size and strength. We are harvesting the fruits of our own misfortunes, our global greed, our continuous raping and plundering of the earth and its possibilities. Of course, the sky is the limit, but the atmosphere will eventually burn you up. Who then should have the upper hand? Capital? The state? Society? Libertarians? A moral uniform of responsible uses of resources? No. I would say our own conscience.


{In my personal point of view the struggle is actually far more complicated and nuanced than stated above, I fear. In the radical human emancipation process which I so solemnly defend and preach, in which the individual has to face and free himself from everything that determines himself –even his genes – as if it were a natural goal and even the meaning of life itself, I recognize the role of society that opposes this holy process of emancipating myself. Social pressure, stratification and the class-based society are weighing determinants whose yoke we can not get easily rid of as the mere human beings we are. In the contrary, the cost of only questioning society, let alone the anti-social (or preferably called the post-social) struggle, that comes along with it is experienced as a great obstacle and the main incentive not to emancipate. That people will voluntarily reject society as an unconditional natural self-evident given is clearly not existent. I fear society has won this battle. But does society, being the holistic ideal image of socialization, needs to be fought despite our emancipation urge? Maybe the fact that hermits and consorts had very few success is the proof that there truly are boundaries to the human absolution. Maybe, but it is my right to refuse this ‘truth’. However it may be, where the liberal enslaves society to eternal obedience to the free market-dictatorship and where the socialist enslaves capital to serve the common good and the libertarian opposes any chain to the “choice economy” I consciously let the discussion unspoiled and open for debate. I look at everything deductively and perceive that the cost of the anti-social struggle is experienced as too high to risk. However this is not a premise to give up the anti-social struggle (at least not for me) we must value the functionality of society and even the nation to our own conscience instead of ignoring it. And its value is according to me not to be underestimated.}


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: