They Are Still Digging

Duly Noted

No failed remedy is sufficiently threadbare not to inject it again.

Gresham’s Law is valid beyond the field of economics. As we know, bad money drives good money out. An international cabal uses bad fiction to drive good facts out of the mind of its credulous clients. Accordingly, even a few of those that do not support the cause served by the lie accept some inventions as facts. 

Why is skewed reality spread as the “real McCoy” version of what is an easily disrobed emperor. The generation of the 68-ers is now in power through its control of a multitude of institutions. Those whose once pursued revolution has failed responded by infiltrating the humanities departments of the universities and the media. In ’68, the “revolution” of the spoiled bored children of the middle classes, has failed. The sensible masses did not respond to the dreams of the kids that selflessly offered to lead them. The disavowed continued to be driven by their compulsion. It was to atone for the success of the generation that won a war and for the “economic miracles” of their elders. 

As “Plan A” to take power crashed, the participants made a discovery. Using their privileged start in life, they could get control of the “State”. This notion implied a discovery. Their inspirational, but generally not openly acknowledged Imam, Karl Marx had overlooked something. He had predicted the disappearance of the state as a prelude to the “total liberation” of man. Here we must glance at the original doctrine. 

Marx did not predict that the socialist revolution led by Communists would immediate abolish the historical state. He held that in Socialism, the state would remain operational for the duration of the process of transformation. As communism nears, the socialist state atrophies because the need for it would diminish thanks to re-education, voluntary compliance, and unanimity. Nasty realists find the cause of “compliance” in the brainwash of a future generation. 

Now then, in case you forgot what you have been taught, the role of the state needs a refresher. To Marx, the state is unlike what the classical democratic concept alleges. In that democratic version, it strives to be a neutral representative of the moment’s continually changing majority. This model postulates a good state that represents society’s consensus and it is limited to what society finds to be essential services. 

Marx’ concept contradicts that model.  The historical state is an instrument of the ruling class. He asserts that this ruling class is always a minority. Ergo, its state is an instrument of oppression to facilitate economic exploitation. Such a state is necessarily an instrument of dictatorship. Therefore, it is by no means democratic as the exploiters pretend. Any such claim is dismissed as psychological warfare by the ruling class, or if honestly meant, as ignorance.

The Socialist revolution is not unique as it is part of a process that defines history as a series of uprising by the oppressed. Its uniqueness is that a majority takes power. The resulting state resembles the historical state in that it is an instrument of oppression. It departs from the pattern of the past in that the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, while an instrument of oppression, serves a majority that suppresses a minority. Communism becomes possible once that minority is liquidated. Since society will consist of one class, the state becomes superfluous, as no alienating differences of interest will exist. No one oppresses himself. 

The implication points to dangers if the carriers of this virus gain power or influence through bureaucracies. The element that acts through institutions exhibits harmful attitudes. (1) They hold that democracy can exist only if all are of the same mind. (2) The belief in reeducating society and changing human nature promises that coercion will be of short duration and, even if initially not understood by most, benevolent. (3) Pressure applied to change the consciousness of the masses is legitimate. (4) Actual majorities may be ignored if those predestined to lead regard their thinking as retrograde. Lenin put it succinctly when he declared his disinterest in numerical quantitative majorities. He naturally represented a qualitative “majority”. This notion gave his party moral legitimacy to rule to reprogram the majority that suffered from “false consciousness”. 

The successors of the Bolsheviks, whether conscious of their roots or not, draw their inspiration from a shared belief. It is that temporarily a large and expanding state is needed to secure the ideals that allow them to command society in need of improvement. This growing state must extend beyond politics, go beyond the control of the economy, and seep into every aspect of private affairs. This fits the definition of totalitarianism that is; of power, that knows no personal sphere beyond the reach of politics. The transgression is morally justified by the humanitarian goal pursued by the operators of the system.

As suggested, power is more than physical coercion that hounds those whose ideas are declared crimes of attitude. Power includes a key component to secure dominance by the might to determine what must be professed beliefs, as does PC. Beyond that, the ability to proclaim anathemas follows, and control is cemented, by proclaiming fact-denying myths to be unchallengeable truths. 

The result of eliminating the facts from the market place of ideas by replacing them with fiction reflects the influence of newsmakers that do not report the news but who make them up. Determining what may be thought gives more power than physical coercion can. The upshot of its unabashed use is that, in areas where you lack personal knowledge, even you might believe at least a part of what is presented. 

The results channeling our lives abound. Every problem, even if it results from the mismanagement of personal affairs, or from the “state’s” bungling, are answered by “more government” and therefore more might for its operators. That the proposed policy –no failed remedy is sufficiently threadbare to avoid it- is likely not to work is no disadvantage. When the crash follows, it is used to plead for even more high-tax financed intervention -and dependency.  Correspondingly, certain countries are special victims of the, by design, skewed presentation of their affairs. For good reason, the United States, Israel, Switzerland and Hungary are among those that share the honor of being pilloried and the misrepresentation of their case. The conclusion is: Buyer beware! 

Gresham's law

You are right to extend Gresham's law from mere quantitaive representations (currency) to substantive representations (theories of society).  I extend it in a different direction:  to social relationships.  Bad relationships (coercive, expert-formulated) drive out good relationships (traditional, voluntary).  It is a constant temptation for the inhabitant of a high-taxing welfare state to scant voluntary charity because he is already contributing through the state. 

How many of our sociailsts have any confidence that the state will wither is a question.  I think they plan on the good people having to force the bad people to "act right" forever.

I would have to add that as majorities flock to totalitarianism and dependency, majority rule becomes less impressive.  My pet theory, which I have seen faintly echoed elsewhere -- and which is doubtless well known to experts on the subject -- is that majority rule is only appropriate among those who are in agreement about fundamental truths and ethical principles.  Then, when a comparatively unimportant controversy arises, they won't mind if those with a different opinion regarding it make the decisions.  But rule by a majority whose "truths" and "ethcics" are beyond the range of anything you consider acceptable or compatible  cannot be considered legitimate. What do you think, Professor?