March Towards Freedom

With the recent elections in the UK I thought it was time to delve into the present political structure, how history has shaped where we are and what is to come during the 21st Century. I believe history will look back at the 21st Century as a golden era in humanities progress. Not only from a technological view, but politically also. 

We have to start with a conventional view of the current system. At school you are taught about the political spectrum, a view that places all political views on a sliding scale from left to right with current positions of the political establishment rooted in the center. The picture below illustrates this concept for anyone who is not familiar with the spectrum.

Click to enlarge

I have plotted various political ideologies along with popular UK political parties. In school you are taught that both the left and right sides of the spectrum are political extremes and should be avoided, leaving the centre ground as the only option by default. Incidentally this ground is occupied by all major western political parties. For example in the UK I have drawn from left to right, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives as this represents their historic political views but in recent years they have blurred to the point of being nearly indistinguishable.

I started having a real problem with this picture as I began to branch out my thinking during my twenties and saw alternatives. Such alternatives could not be mapped onto this conventional model. Even before I formed such views I still had issues with the old model as it places both Communism and Fascism at opposite ends yet both ideologies share common views. They both despised Capitalism, favoured central planning, implemented price controls along and deficit spending. The right wing is supposed to be the side of Capitalism, yet as Joseph Gobbels said;

"It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism"

Nazism was called National Socialism as its members aligned more with Socialist principles than Capitalists and free marketeers.

Therefore a new political model is required not only to make this anomaly correct but the very nature of it assumes society with be stuck in stasis with a state.

Click to enlarge

I have labelled it "Real Political Spectrum" as I believe all political views can be mapped onto such a model with consistency. The real spectrum has at one end Totalitarianism and slavery. Such regimes have little or no rights for the individual. In the past all of the western world used to fall under such a description. Our ancestors lived under serfdom which closely resembled slavery and the landowners could do as they pleased with the people who worked there. Slowly people gained more rights removing the shackles of serfdom. Democracy would take a long time to establish itself. In the past the King had complete autonomy over the people but this belief would be challenged. The Age of Enlightenment espoused radical ideas such that an individual had the right to pursue happiness and a freedom. These concepts were non-intuitive to many at the time who had always been directly governed by strict central authorities. Such ideas began in Scotland, England and Holland with the emphasis on tolerance to one another. Thinkers such as John Locke would inspire a whole generation to emigrate to the Americas and spread the concept of liberty. Schools were appearing as early as the 15th Century, such as the scholastics of Salamanca in formulating a theory which declared the rights to life and liberty; at the time a novel thought. Later schools would come along, such as the Austrian School, repeating and supplementing arguments for subjective value, price theory, business cycles, inflation, interest rates and so forth. These ideas enlightened many who found them.

During the age of reason another group of thinkers began distorting the word freedom. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that true freedom was the individuals submission to the wills of others in power. Freedom of the individual was not real freedom. Real freedom was the collective view of the elite few over the many. These ideas were explored in further detail by a later generation of thinkers. Hegelianism explained that the state had supreme rights over an individual. Such views would influence next generation thinkers such as Karl Marx. The left would go on to pollute the very essence of freedom, liberalism and human rights. Freedom became associated with a submission to the state for a collective good. Liberalism was associated with state grand plans to organise and plan for societies needs. Rather than individuals choices, human rights became one that was ever more influenced by the states needs.

During the 19th century regions such as Britain, the Low Countries, North America and Scandinavia became incredibly rich as liberty and the individuals rights to pursue happiness were embraced. America experienced deflation and a rapidly growing economy, Sweden had moved from a relatively poor country in Europe to one of the richest by the end of the century. Germany unified and became a world beater in the Chemical Industry due to its liberal patent system compared to Britain and France where the State still granted monopoly patents. Freedom was creating wealth and materialism for the first time in human history. 

During the next century these countries would all succumb to the collective will of the state. Loss of freedoms and the expanse of Government was a slow process. During the Great Depression in America people still believed they were better off dead then accepting handouts from the state. How societies morals changed over the course of a couple of generations. The social ratchet kept tightening as the size of Government expanded. Some countries decided to nationalise the farm, notably Russia, Eastern Europe, many parts of Asia, South America, Africa and sporadic islands most famously Cuba came in for good measure. Britain, the Low Countries, North America and Scandinavian, the very nations who cradled liberty, expanded their states but never going the full distance. Swedens state expanded vastly during the 1950's, 60's and 70's, slowly destroying the gains that free market capitalism had bestowed on them during prior years. Americas slow abandonment of their founding fathers constitution and growing Government influence which got worse during the 1960's guns and butter programs left them with a social system that made a mockery of their slogan "land of the free". Reaganomics had shown how muddled the term liberty and free markets had become. Regan spent more than any previous president with large deficit spending policies and expanded the size of Government, yet ironically was labelled a free marketeer. Britain descended into the abyss on a couple of occasions; blackouts, never ending strikes, decline of industry and mass socialist programs. The biggest shock came in the form of Germany the only country to fall into a totalitarian state. The atrocities were no different than those committed in China, Russia or Cambodia. Mao once commented that a nuclear war would be good; it would clear out half the worlds population to start again. The fascination that Nazisim brings to people is the fact it happened in Germany, an industrial power. 

After the war Germany was split, one side more free than the other. Other countries had a similar setup. China and Hong Kongs relationship, North and South Korea. These real life examples would show us all the benefits of individual autonomy over submission of our free will to central authorities. West Germany would become one of the economic powerhouses in Europe once more, South Korea gave its people some of the best living conditions on the continent, despite the fact that the North started out richer and Hong Kong; well in the end China under Deng Xiaoping just copied its neighbour with similar polices. Taiwan, Singapore and notably Japan all blazed a trail in showing the power of unleashing individual autonomy. Japan's 1950's, 60's and 70's bee-like workers transformed one of the poorest nations (just after it had lost everything during WW2) to one of the wealthiest; a first world nation.  

Meanwhile cracks were beginning to show under countries that had opted for the submission to the state. The Soviet bloc would begin to unravel and its leaders gave its people more autonomy over their lives. China and India would move out of their shadows and during the later part of the 20th Century would begin to show their potential. Chile has now become one of the most prosperous nations in South America due to its belief in free markets. Pinochet was a nasty piece of work but this had nothing to do with the economic policies put in place. America, Canada, Britain and many others who had traditional left leaning parties would become pro-market. New Labour was created in the UK; their direction was copied from the Clinton administration who realised that people had spoken and they wanted the Government off their backs.

The trend will continue throughout the 21st Century. At the other end of the spectrum is the endgame for society, freedom for all individuals on the planet and I believe over the course of the 21st Century we will make tremendous progress towards such a goal. The 20th Century will be viewed as a tragic experiment with the state and the submission of our rights in the false belief that this was true freedom. Holocausts, wars; regressions in many nations of basic human freedoms. More people were killed through State inflicted conflicts than in any previous century in human history. Many countries regressed into insular Totalitarian states. Countries that had so much potential; Russia, India, China, Spain, Italy; even Germany. Whole continents such as South America, Africa and Asia all embraced centralised dictatorships. 

Many of developing countries have gained ground and will continue gaining ground on the West but it will be the West that continues to spearhead the charge towards freedom and an abolishion of the state. Its Citizens are still the freest. They are critical thinkers with little respect for their elders conventional views. Many of its brightest and dynamic don't follow; they lead. 

I can not explain exactly how we will transition or when the state will go in its entirety or geographically where this will occur; that's for the future to decide. My excitement lies with the fact that I know it will happen and its only a matter of time. The state will fall from a combination of factors. One they will over-stretch themselves. In doing this they will wittingly and unwittingly hand over more of societies functions to the free market. Second, people will create new de-centralised systems that can not be shut down through acts of third party aggression and will directly bypass Government controls. These systems will run in parallel to the established industries, covertly changing the public's perception that certain services must be provided by a Government. The Internet has proven itself to be a remarkable source of free-willed information. Dictators, notably in Egypt tried to shut it down only to find their economies have now become too dependant on the platform and had to turn it back on. China tries to ban information but projects such as Tor are allowing these people to exchange and read ideas that the state has tried to blackout. Bitcoin will revolutionise money and finance. It or its successor, will prove hard to contain. Many other decentralised systems are coming into play subverting the central authorities. The third reason; new Blood. Young people are great. They have no baggage, no pre-conceived ideas or ideologies that they have espoused for a lifetime. Instead they are open minded and receptive to new concepts with an inquisitive nature unlike older people who are comfortable with the reality they have always known. I was once new blood and during my twenties rejected all beliefs I held dear. My parents held conventional views, all my relatives had no background in social and political issues. I was the first on my mums side to go to University and many people I came across had no interests in such topics. I formed my views completely on my own and through inquisitiveness and sheer graft. When there is no one to show you the door, finding the right one can be hard and time consuming taking a lot of effort. My point is, if I can do it with my background anyone can. All the time its getting easier as more and more convert to realising that individuals have the right to their own destiny.

The mental shift I believe is already starting. Voter apathy, with cynical views towards politics as it seems to fail no matter who obtains power. People bad mouth all the mainstream political parties and are no longer dogmatically tied to a single party, instead select on the day which "handouts" they like best (one of the reasons the parties have all merged to a very common centre ground chasing the ever increasing floating voters). More people are embracing liberty and its principles of limited Government. People who are non-politicised are getting more sceptical of broken promises made by successive parties. 

History will view the 21st Century as a Golden Age in human prosperity and progress. There will be steps back, volatility, ups and downs; its all part of the ongoing struggle to distribute complete autonomy to the individual, to have complete control over their own life. I like many others look forward with excitement to what the future will bring. You should too.

Hung Parliaments

The British people have spoken electing a hung parliament. Negotiations began. Speculation was rife. Media groups with 24 hour coverage. It was 36 years since the UK had the last hung parliament the same time we last entered a period of stagflation. This time a coalition government was the outcome, a marriage between the Conservatives and Liberals. Labours bubble has burst with the 'no more Tory boom and bust' happening on their watch, ending the Utopian mirage the general public believed the party had delivered them. Despite the election defeat the party is still in good condition for the next leader with a sizeable number of seats and share of the vote. I said that if we got a Conservative Government the UK was in trouble (and not under the conventional wisdom), well we got two of the parties so my bets are for a Labour Landslide victory at the next election. David Milliband has put his hat in the ring for the leadership contest, another possible Blair but I get the sense he has more political beliefs than the later PM. Speaking of Prime Ministers, Gordon Brown had a dramatic exit on Tuesday evening. Despite having all the wrong polices I liked Brown. I think he genuinely believed in what he did, was obviously a highly intelligent person and had a strong work ethic who believes he is doing the right thing. There's not many like him in any more in Parliament that is a real politician not a PR Guru such as the other two leaders.

While all the electioneering has taken place we've barely even noticed the carnage in the markets. The DOW crashing 9% at one point. Major stock indices all around the world looking shaky. Markets continue to worry about Greece, Spain, Portugal the UK. A bailout was announced but they can't kid the market who is playing the game but knows that the Government have set up the next disaster. Reports of relative safe 'havens' such as the US is like telling someone the boat they are in is safer than the next one because they've only sprung half as many leaks. Over the long term all boats are sinking just at different rates.

As the wheeling and dealing of the parties took place a hot topic was electoral reform, with the liberals trying to move towards proportional representation. In my view it will be a dark day if the UK was to loose the first past the post system, especially in these choppy waters the world finds itself in now. Its the political system that ensured Britain has historically maintained one of the most liberal and open societies in the world.

The end of the First World War sparked great political upheaval. The old empires - Habsburg, Ottoman, 2nd Reich - all collapsed and with it a scramble for the power vacuums they left behind. Democracy was imposed on many European nations, nations that were not acquainted with democracy. Not only did they get democracy but many got it in the form of proportional representation. The newly drawn boarders of the continent further exacerbated the issue of trying to dictate common policy. History views Fascism in rightly a dark context, however people in such countries didn't vote for the perverse beliefs such parties were associated with as the Second World War drew to an end, such extreme views had evolved during their time in power. Such extreme parties were formed from coalition governments that aligned themselves with traditional pillars of society.

Many European nations contained fragmented parliaments during the interwar period. Governments would come and go in months, for example the Reichstag in Germany had 16 parties all contradicting one another making laws almost impossible to pass. Many parliamentary members were radicals compounding the lack of common ground to be found giving huge variance towards policy. When the 'Crisis in Capitalism' struck in 1929, so did the crisis in democracy within many such European countries. The public began to believe that democracy was too ineffective to solve their problems thus seeking more radical alternatives. As extremes were given platforms in the context detailed above, nation after nation succumbed to the far right. All the above never occurred in Britain, the most mature democracy in the world. We had our share Fascism, but the first past the post never favoured Oswald Mosley.

Italian Fascism began like this, opportunities created by PR and the alliances they were able to obtain. Over time it gradually morphed into the political party it became infamous for. Hitler rose to power under exactly the same circumstances, again aligning himself with traditional pillars of society that could agree on some aspects of common policy but ignored other more radical views, believing these could be controlled. As Hitler and others increased their grip on power, they also abolished democracy and so began the dictatorships that they have become synonymous with.

Now I'm not saying that PR means we are going to elect a Fascist government, times have changed and I think the majority of Europe is a far more tolerant place. But PR gives rise to radical groups and fragmented weak governments. When the economies ticking over and everything seems fine this isn't so much of an issue, but when we have a persistent crisis then things can get messy.

I realise that our current first past the post system has produced a hung parliament, however the majority of seats are held by mainstream progressive parties. If we had PR then the Fascist BNP would have gained around 12 seats. Our current system ensures no such political base for them. UKIP would have around 18, the Greens 6. I understand what people say when parties get a greater share of the vote but don't get a proportional amount of seats, but first past the post generally ensures a moderate parliament. First past the post has its flaws but I would prefer it to other suggested alternatives out there.

With the new policy of fixed term parliaments I currently can't see the current Government lasting the five years. Splits are already emerging and when tough choices are to be made, finger pointing will begin, deals and U-turns will take place, garnishing further support for the opposition. Another Labour Government within five years? I think so and with it, further relative decline for the UK.