On The Obstacles To a Voluntaryist Society

The world is going towards global government, and there are almost no countries where Voluntaryism is widespread. More than likely, we're going towards a global welfare state. Here's the essential problem: overall societies prosper more with a welfare state. People are too selfish to provide for those in need willingly, so a welfare state is necessary to promote the efficiency necessary for societal prosperity.  

The welfare state isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of efficiency. Even if the welfare state is wrong, it's the only rational choice for society. Unfortunate, this is the logical choice. Society doesn't care about equality or freedom, Society only cares about efficiency. Society doesn't care the individual, it only cares about the collective interests. the individual and the collective will always be inherently opposed

The only way to get rid of the welfare state, is to supplant society is the dominating model. That would require complete decentralization (aka self-managed anarchy)...However that kind of system requires active participation of at least a majority of the population, and currently, the majority of this generation is so irresponsible that they would prefer to have their decisions made for them by society, by culture, by government, by corporations, by advertisements on TV and the Internet

We live in a generation that is far too lazy to make any decisions for themselves, and this is why a collectivist society and government is inevitable. When people are unwilling to make decisions for themselves, a government and society to step in and control them in their own absence of willingness for self-control becomes a necessity.

Parents are currently so irresponsible they want the government to provide for their kid's education, their food, their jobs, their safety, their retirement, their insurance, their health, their lives. Everyone is depending on the government to take care of their kids for them. The government is so powerful because the majority of the people willingly gave the government that power because they are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. 

Analysis of the Class System and the Development of Society

(Inspired by the thoughts of +Sophia Marden)
  
The following post is formatted as a series of arguments made by Sophia Marsden, followed by my rebuttals:

1. "The working class does have independent capacity to act, it just doesn't (yet) have the organisational structure in place to do so"

The working class does not, nor have they ever had the motivation to act; this is why unions become corrupt, communist has failed, socialist reforms lose all integrity, and never in the history of communist reform has the single most important vestige of communism ever manifested: "for the proletariat to control the means of production". This has never happened, and never will happen, and the reason should be obvious by now:

The vast majority of people don't care about the means of production,don't care about politics*, don't care about their environment-- basically they don't care about anything beyond their own lives as distinct from everyone else: their jobs, their families, their relationships, their security. It's only when basic needs are not satisfied, that the proletariat cares about anything. There have been only a few things that have spurred revolts, such as food, water, alcohol, displacement, and the threatening of livelihood (i.e. the American Civil War). So long as the proletariat is given their basic needs, a feeling of security, and the illusion of freedom and independence, They will not act. Even if they hate their government, and believe their government is wrong and vile and corrupt, they will not act, because their basic motivations are satisfied, and deep down, these are all they really care about.

After all that has happened throughout history, for you to claim that the proletariat has, does, or will ever have the motivation to act, is positively delusional.

2a. "Also a key difference between class and caste is that classes are fluid. A middle class person who achieves the capacities of the ruling class is just a ruling class person"

This is based on the premise that money and power determine one's class. First I want to establish that money and power are essentially different currencies of "trust". In recent years there has been a drive (particularly in the U.S. and the E.U. towards depreciating money in favor of power as a medium of trust, as the embezzlement of power is a lot easier to hide than the embezzlement of money. But that's a different topic altogether ;-)

 But whether trust is in the form of money, power, good will, or simply charisma, the Aristocracy always has the field advantage, and that makes them the greatest threat to those who crave "trust" the most, the middle class. But I have already addressed that argument.

2b. " - and the key point here is, there is absolutely no threat to the ruling class from that. It just means an extra body on side to fight for their interests."

I don't think aristocrats are afraid of losing their money or power, I think it is more a sort of obligation or responsibility to increase the "trust" they inherited. See the Parable of the Talents: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=NKJV

The middle class does not threaten the aristocracy themselves, they threaten their legacy. Not understanding the prestige of the aristocracy, their traditions, and their values, The petty bourgeoisie will only infect the ruling class with their childish naivety. To quote from your own article on the subject,

"Middle class people are also bad because they’re not upper class. Upper class people can trace their genealogies back to the Norman Invasion. They have kept their blood pure of bad genes through centuries of selective breeding and as such live on a whole other plane to the rest of us. Despite this they are tolerant and likable people who can get on with everyone and fit in to any situation. They indulge in upper class manly pursuits like riding and hunting and in doing so hark back to a golden age of better times.

Middle class people have none of that. They trace themselves back to yeomen farmers. Their families became notable in the 17th and 18th centuries where they were professionals or business owners. They are always trying to hard to be like their betters which is bad because they can never match the purebred lightness of the true aristocrat. They are constantly rushing around and trying to achieve things which is a cause of instability in society." 

Perhaps you made these arguments only to illustrate British stereotypes, but based on my own research, I believe that these stereotypes are so widely held by society that they are the predominating reality in society. As you know, I am a misanthrope who believes himself to be distinct from society, and all its limiting stereotypes, traditions, class distinctions, etc., but since those who do identify with society are bound by such things, these arguments are both relevant, legitimate, and (so far as I can tell) consistent with the present-day socio-economic climate in most countries.

2c. "An individual in that class may have a problem with it but as a whole it benefits them since it gives a vision of "social mobility" and promotes their belief system of aspiration which is important to them because it tells them (against most of the evidence) that they deserve their wealth and power."

To address this I must first define "world-building", as you did not understand what I mean by that. To me, world-building is highly-structured, and based on the same principles as all of nature: the iterative building of civilization based on accepted patterns, protocols, etc. of development (like a fractal). The "pattern" for world-building is, in a word, "tradition".

Once again drawing upon the same article:

"The upper class rules the world, but it does so as a group so steeped in traditions and rituals that none of them actually have any power. They must do what must be done, not what they desire, their delusion is that they cannot act upon their own power when in reality they could."

The only class that has "social mobility", as more-or-less implied by that same article, and that mobility is also essentially an illusion. To suggest that the upper-class would encourage social mobility, would first require demonstrating the upper class, being bound by tradition and societal constraints, and obligations imposed on them by the class system (a relic of the caste system no doubt, but still an integral part of the aristocracy).

"The ruling class doesn't really create wealth or build worlds though. It has control over the oven so it can offer the oven to the workers in exchange for them building those things. Yes it has control, but it doesn't and cannot do anything for itself. They are the epitome of the emperor with no clothes. It is the oven, not the working class, which can do nothing for itself."

As I said, this is the distinction between power, money, and influence: Power and money are both currencies (power is a more abstract currency, whereas money is a more concrete one; however, more recently, power and money have begun to merge into the same currency, or at the very least that appears to be the global agenda).

The ruling class creates wealth in the sense that they put in place the pattern (traditions) necessary to build wealth, and sublimate the petty bourgeoisie's destructive drive for "trust" (money and power) into the creation (materialization) of wealth, world-building, etc.

Let us simplify it a bit though, so as to reach an agreement on this point. I am assisting my brother +Jeffrey Silcock in his film study class, and they divide the filmmaking process into 4 distinct parts:

1. The Producers
2. The Directors
3. The Actors
4. The Supporting Cast

As it turns out, this is an elegant analogy for class structure:

The Aristocracy/Bourgeoisie (The Producers):

They have all the "trust" (money and power), and are entrusted with the Hollywood legacy (tradition), to ensure that the prestige of filmmaking (Society) is not compromised by outsiders (the petty bourgeoisie/middle class).

The Middle Class (The Directors)

They are dispensed with influence (symbolic "trust"), and given a petty portion of the bourgeoisie's (aristocracy's) money/power, to motivate the materialization of the patterns (traditions) of the producers.

Politicians (The Actors)

They are chosen by the middle class (the directors) to dispense influence according to their agendas. Good politicians who can pretend to be acting of their own free will, while conforming to the directives of the middle class, do very well, and are able to share in the influence of their directors. Some of them are even elevated to the status of the directors, and are able to give their own directives, and act only as they see fit.

The politicians who do not conform well to their directives, or who are terrible actors, are seen as a liability to the agendas of the directors (who's reputations will be ruined if they disappoint the producers who "trust" them), these actors will be shunned from the establishment, and will not be able to dispense influence effectively anymore. They become political outcast, a sort of limbo between actors and the supporting cast.

Working Class/Proletariat (The Supporting Cast)

These are the people who actually power civilization. They are the support system that works to create the world as designed (created) by the Producers, managed by the Directors, and packaged and presented by the Actors. While the Proletariat are the primary class of society that makes civilization possible, they will never be properly appreciated or compensated for their efforts, nor have any power over the reality they have built, because it is not the workers that are recognized in society, but the designers, influencers, and actors. The supporting cast will always be an afterthought, taken for granted even by themselves. And they are for the most part content with this humble existence, because they are certain they cannot hope for a better one.

2d. "The ruling class doesn't really create wealth or build worlds though. It has control over the oven so it can offer the oven to the workers in exchange for them building those things. Yes it has control, but it doesn't and cannot do anything for itself. They are the epitome of the emperor with no clothes. It is the oven, not the working class, which can do nothing for itself."

Referencing the above analogy, The ruling class does create wealth and build worlds, they just don't materialize what they have created, being content with developing the blueprint for society, draw the dimensions (traditions, norms, etc.) to ensure society does not stray far from the intended design; when I think of "creation", I think of God. Obviously God, who is infinite, cannot have possibly materialized us (that would be a violation of his infinite nature). Instead, God sets a pattern in place ("The Logos"), and creation emanates from it. The ruling class is the same with its development of society and its supporting constructs and institutions.

"It has control over the oven so it can offer the oven to the workers in exchange for them building those things."

This is fallacious, the producers do not interact with the supporting class (this would be absurd: why would the rich shame themselves by appealing to the interests of lowly peasants? Why even waste their time with the ignorant and simple-minded commoners?

The actors (politicians) interact with the commoners to make false promises, deceive them with political tricks and infrastructural illusions, convince them to sell their souls in exchange for 
free stuff", and lobby interests under the pretense of populism. 

But even then, the actors rarely interact with the commoners directly either, as they are able to easily accomplish interface via proxy, using the mass media, PR spokesmen, and all the various outlets of journalism and public speaking. 

(Note that the category "politician" includes celebrities, CEOs, Hollywood stars, lobbyists, ambassadors, and most public figures).

"It is the oven, not the working class, which can do nothing for itself."

2e. As you already explained in your "Stereotypes about the Middle Class" post, and as I implied in my God analogy, They can do anything they wish , but they don't because it's not in their nature to. They are bound by the very traditions they (or their ancestors) created to materialize society, and by proxy the world.

2f. "In this day and age (because now is a very different time to the past) the middle class is a very disparate bunch, it consists of two main groups: those who own businesses that they themselves work in and those who are part of the middle and upper layers of the bureaucracy both for the government and for private industry. They differ from the working class in that they have some individual agency over their labour (although more so in the first group and in the second group that agency is being pushed further and further up the ladder as time goes on), on the other hand they are still largely subject to the force of capital (the SME owner has his markets completely distorted by the big bourgeoisie, the bureaucrat has to answer to his superiors) and unlike those owners of capital who don't have to work both of them experience the fact that labour is the true creative force through their means of existence. As such they have an ambivalent position, sometimes tending to side with the interests of the working class, other times siding with the interests of the ruling class (especially when they imagine they can reach that position themselves)."

I agree on all counts, but would like to add an interesting observation to that: If they side with the interests of the working class, they would be more likely to support communism/the public sector, whereas if they side with the interests of the ruling class, they would be more likely to support capitalism/the private sector.

Power vs. Influence, in the Context of Communist Theory and History

(Extracted from a discussion with Sophia Masden)

I make the distinction between power and influence because influence is what drives (catalyzes) the actions taking place, but influence does not actually produce anything. I think you should be able to understand this distinction, owing to your Marxist background. So I will further explain this analogy in that context, so you will appreciate the importance of the distinction:

1.1.a: The ruling class: They do not produce commodities; Instead they coerce the working class into producing for them; it is actually the working class who is producing; thus, while the working class are actually the ones who have the power, they are the engine that drives the machine of (in this case) capitalism.

1.1.b: Returning to the train analogy:

"utility is the coal, possession (identification) is the act of burning the coal for fuel, power is the engine being driven by the fuel being burned, and influence is the train being moved by the engine.

In the train analogy, the working class is the "engine" that drives capitalism, and the ruling class...interestingly enough (I was truly surprised!) has neither influence nor power. They are actually producers just like the working class, only instead of goods or intellectual property, they produce wealth, prestige, society....essentially they are world builders, macroproducers.

1.1.c: The real influencers:

Note for the purposes of this section and all those after, I should make the distinction between power and influence clear:
_______________

1. Power (real): the transformation of utility into produce.

a. Worker's power: the transformation of utility into commodities. Used primarily for subsistence.

b. Ruler's power: the transformation of utility into wealth and influence. Used primarily for wealth-building and world-building

2. Influence: the presumption and use of symbolic (illusory) power to build the agendas (filters) through which the infrastructure of power (real) is manifested. Essentially, influence is built either through: 

a. Representing (illusory) power as if it were (real) power, or

b. Convincing those who have power (the working/ruling classes) that it is in their best interests to have their power represented by a third-party. This "better interest" is facilitated either through promises to improve their socio-economic status and/or quality of life (usually this is the means of influencing the power of the working class), or through threats, extortion, coercion, force, etc. (this is usually the means of influencing the ruling class).

3. Worker's influence: When the working class has control over the means of production, they become the primary influencers.

a. In this scenario, the middle class (the petty bourgeoisie) dissolves or is merged into the working class.

b. Unfortunately, in every implementation of Communist Socialism established thus far, the dissolution of the middle class results in a power (or for the purposes of this comment, "influence") vacuum.

c. Due to the working class's lack of knowledge, experience, or drive to influence the infrastructure of power, most of the influence is absorbed by the new ruling class.

d.The Bourgeoisie (ruling class) is also dismantled through communist revolution, which would appear to result in the working class becoming the new ruling class ("The dictatorship of the Proletariat"; this would be favorable, as having both power and influence (representation of power) would ensure the Proletariat's complete control over the means of their socio-economic infrastructure, and the governing and influence thereof.

d. However, because the Proletariat is also inexperienced and lacking the drive or interest in macroproduction (microproduction, the production of commodity goods, is what they are most familiar and comfortable with), so the power (influence) vacuum created by the overthrow of the ruling class, and the subsequent dissolution of the middle class, is instead filled by the communist revolutionaries (who are opportunists by nature, and thus corrupted by power, see Mein Kemp) who form a power-hungry elite vanguard aristocracy.

e. The elite vanguard aristocracy is what all Communist governments have deteriorated into thus far, to my knowledge.

4. Ruler's influence (see above): When the representation of power (influence) is merged into the domain of the ruling class. The most common implementation of this is the elite vanguard aristocracy.
__________________

The ones who actually influence are the middle class (the petty bourgeoisie); because they are driven by an obsessive need for more influence (symbolic power), they are constantly driving themselves into institutions of power: They are the educators, the managers, the politicians, parliament and congress, the ambassadors.

The ruling class, so that they are not stripped from their perch by the ever-aggressive middle-class, are constantly giving concessions, earmarks, and political advantages to them to appease them. In exchange for keeping their king-of-the-hill status, the ruling class goes along with whatever agenda the petty bourgeoisie has, so long as it does not interfere too much with their wealth-building and world-building.

The middle class is like the illegitimate generation of kings, determined to rule but lacking to socio-economic status to feasibly do-so. Like William the Conqueror, who conquered and submitted the Germanic tribes to his will, in hopes of legitimizing his rule, The petty bourgeoisie are constantly advancing agendas to increase their power, in hopes of becoming a part of the ruling class.

1.1d: Returning to the oven analogy (to tie this all together), the oven would be analogous to the working class, that cannot do anything on its own, but instead produces within the confines of the system that the ruling class decides, the decisions of which are heavily influenced by the power-hungry agendas of the middle class.

1.1e: So the oven (working class) is producing the bread through the baking of utility (bread) via their power (heat). Thus, the working class has all the power, but, just as you said, the oven (working class) "doesn't have independent capacity to act, it cannot do anything itself"; it can only heat the bread that is given to them by the ruling class (those who decide), and the bread is baked according to the temperature, restrictions, time, and recipe (the agenda) dictated by the middle class (petty bourgeoisie).

1.1f: The oven actually does have the power, but it cannot do anything with that power, because power lies not in decision-making or influence, but in the transformation of utility into produce.