There is No Such Thing as a Left-Wing Government
The Nonpartisan Revolution: Monopoly, Money, and Guns
The State is a monopoly of violence. Full stop. The end. Any argument about what governments should or shouldn’t do begins and ends with this definition of what nation-states are.
A monopoly on violence.
A reactionary and predatory parasite.
But what if it’s democratic? And provides things like health care and education?
Stockholm Syndrome. That’s all that is.
The nation-state is an administrative bureaucracy. It transforms what already exists. What the people have already created.
The state organizes around unsound principles. It persuades the masses that only they can deliver “social services.”
There is no such thing as a left-wing government.
States are by definition reactionary. Democratic socialists should support its abolition. Otherwise, they are mere neoliberals with a conscience.
Likewise, many so-called “anarcho-capitalists,” are statists in disguise. And this isn't a straw man.
In Democracy, the God that Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe talks about global mega-corporations taking the place of states. And this isn't hyperbolic. Here are a few quotes:
The production of security—of police protection and of a judicial system—which is usually assumed to lie outside the province of free markets and be the proper function of government, would most likely be taken over by major Western insurance companies... [chapter 6, part 3]
Consider for a moment a completely stateless world. While most property owners would be individually insured by large, often multinational insurance companies endowed with huge capital reserves... [chapter 12, part 7]
Furthermore, all insurance companies are connected through a complex network of contractual agreements on mutual assistance and arbitration as well as a system of international reinsurance agencies representing a combined economic power which dwarfs most if not all contemporary governments, and they have acquired this position because of their reputation as effective, reliable, and honest businesses. [chapter 13, part 4, emphasis mine]
The problem? I’ve quoted Hoppe favourably before. What’s going on?
There are no normatively neutral interpretations of aggression and defensive force.
Who’s to say I punched you in the face without cause? Perhaps you slept with my wife.
Who’s to say those resources are really yours? My act of war is defending the libertarian system.
Are we starting from scratch after the anarcho-capitalist libertarian revolution?
Are these multinational insurance companies the ones that currently exist? Or are they new ones presumably making tonnes of gold by providing “effective, reliable, and honest business?”
What exactly changes when everyone starts paying lip service to Murray Rothbard?
If the masses woke up one day and understood the “Austrian” school of economics and libertarian theory, couldn’t we just use the constitutional democracies we have now?
If everybody understood what Rothbard was getting at, there would be no need to institute a brand new system of anarcho-capitalism.
Sure, the nation-state may whither away.
But currently, trying to govern independently of the overbearing and demanding bureaucracy that clings to our liberal institutions like a parasite is impossible.
So what’s the answer here?
The Nonviolent Revolution
Gene Sharp isn't the only nonviolent revolutionary theorist, but he's the one I'm most familiar with. He wrote a trilogy of books: The Politics of Nonviolence.
I like book two: The Methods of Nonviolent Struggle.
Sharp details nearly 200 different methods of nonviolent struggle used throughout history. From obvious tactics like protesting in the streets, to unconventional methods such as celibacy.
Since the state is fundamentally a violent institution, we cannot fight fire with fire.
The more successful a movement is at peaceful struggle, the more we unmask the nation-state for what it truly is: violence.
But what will we be protesting?
Various schools of leftism are more or less united by a belief in equality. And the reality that ManBearPig is an unmitigated disaster.
But what about persuading the masses?
What about right-wingers who may hate the state but think inequality is a feature, not a bug? Or that climate change is a scam?
Does everyone really need to team up? Is that even possible?
Good luck making a case for reuniting the left and right.
Any new vanguard replaces the current establishment. They seize control of the state apparatus and they eliminate their opposition.
That's what revolutionaries mostly do.
Think of politics like the mafia and everything falls into place. Cynical? Sure. But reality-based.
There’s no such thing as a left-wing government.
So with that in mind, how do we…
Win over the support of the masses without compromising values?
Or cooperate with political adversaries without compromising your values?
How?
How does one take down the establishment without becoming the establishment?
The Money Revolution
For answers, I suggest a passage from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century.
“Some Utopians attack competition; others refuse to accept the division of labor and the whole industrial order; the workingmen, in their crass ignorance, blame machinery. No one, to this day, has thought of denying the utility and legitimacy of credit; nevertheless it is incontestable that the perversion of credit is the most active cause of the poverty of the masses. Were it not for this, the deplorable effects of the division of labor, of the employment of machinery, of competition, would scarcely be felt at all, would not even exist. Is it not evident that tendency of society is towards poverty, not through the depravity of men, but through the disorder of its own elementary principles?”
Money is one side of every transaction. And so long as nation-states and their protected-status banks control the money supply, we will never be free.
Marx said to seize the means of production. What if we listen to Proudhon instead and seize the means of money and credit production?
After all, military defence contractors don’t exist without central control over money and credit. Global corporate cartels exploiting the third world don't exist without central banking.
So how do we take the power back?
By trading in something other than the banker debt instruments the establishment calls “money.”
This will radically decentralize power to an individual level. Some communities may organize around precious metals or crypto.
Others, the “progressive,” can form communes that “evolve” beyond private ownership and capital.
Others will watch on the sidelines and see how that turns out.
Past revolutions swap out the top figure for someone else. The money revolution destroys the pyramid once and for all.
Why?
Because replacing the nation-state is paramount in our battle against ManBearPig.
Political philosophers designed the system before the Industrial Revolution.
Capital and technology corrupted it.
Now, the nation-state is causing mass extinction events based on the disorder of its elementary principles.
Who in their right mind is against replacing this monstrous system of compulsion and coercion? People concerned about a “social safety net?”
That’s the speech of someone who’s suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Smaller, decentralized communities solve problems directly and effectively. All central authority does is burden decision-making with overarching and unnecessary bureaucracy.
Communes, local governments, associations of private property owners — these people are better equipped to understand their own needs. They can allocate resources more effectively than top-down central authority.
Decentralization encourages innovation and experimentation. Free and purposeful action tailors solutions to unique times, places, and circumstances.
The one-size-fits-all policy of some distant ruler shouldn't constrain local and creative solutions.
Bureaucracies, large and small, are fundamentally inefficient structures. The potential for waste and resource misallocation is an escapable fact of the tax-funded system.
But if bureaucracy is an incapable fact of life, which would you prefer, distant or local?
Decisions made far removed from the communities they affect? Or a network of nodes communicating through honest price signals and communication?
Prelude to the Gun Revolution
Who gets the guns? When is force legitimate?
The Internet democratized information and knowledge. Putting the “rule of law” through the same process creates a new social order.
Consider, that with the power of money and credit restored to the masses, our wealth grows. And with abundance, our transactional behaviours give way to distributional behaviours.
That is, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
But nothing’s enforced by a central state—because there is no such thing as a left-wing government.
From our vantage point in the 2020s, giving the state more power is a bad take. Left or right.
Empowering administrative bureaucracy is reactionary. Ahistorical. Even if it is a so-called “worker's state.”
The masses don’t need a leader. What they need is an intellectual awakening—A foundation from which to springboard their own personal growth and change.
Anything short of a mass awakening is a cop-out.
You can blame “the state,” “capitalism,” “socialism,” “the banks,” “the new world order,” “religion,” “social media,” or whatever you want.
At the end of the day, the only way out of this predicament is a mass awakening. Here are the concerns I have.
The state has a monopoly on violence. It is an institution no different from the mob. A mass gang of crooks and liars.
Nonviolence is the only means of defeating the state.
Money and credit are the lifeblood of the economy. Right now these are under the auspices of the corporate nation-state. Restoring money and credit locally increases individual freedom and community while decreasing corrupted central power.
Social cooperation is a given. But disputes happen. Disputes arise from scarcity. Answering questions on proper gun ownership and legitimate uses of force is essential to settling disputes.
Since we haven’t touched on this last point, I’ll do so now.
The Gun Revolution
This is what separates the real revolution from some faux pas reactionary moment.
The real revolution is a mass awakening. Because only through this awakening does the dreaded “power vaccuum” cease to exist.
Think of an addict. Someone who used to drink too much. They stop for a few weeks but the allure of the bottle pulls them back.
Now imagine an awakening on their part. Whether by a recovery program, a psychedelic trip, consistent meditation, diet and exercise, etc., doesn’t matter.
What matters is that they don’t want to drink. They prefer not to. It takes zero willpower. They’re a changed person.
That is the post-revolutionary society.
That’s not to say we’d become a bunch of pansy-ass pacifists. We can still enjoy a beer on a sunny summer afternoon. Especially if the BBQ is out and cigars are being lit. It’s all part of the ritual.
Likewise, society has its rituals. Its norms, customs, and laws. Enforcement is in effect. There’s a ritual that everyone follows and agrees on.
And compared to the alternatives, the system is fair and impartial.
But when taken to its extreme — when you ruin the BBQ because you downed a forty of vodka and made an ass of yourself — the rule of law becomes unfair and biased.
Right now, we live in a society of functional alcoholics who don’t think they have a problem.
Who says state-enforced gun control is compassionate, morally superior, and rational? There is nothing rational about a monopoly. There is nothing moral or compassionate about violence.
The gun revolution begins with a proper assessment of nonviolence.
Nonviolence means conducting yourself in ways that reduce conflict.
Nonviolence means never getting angry again. Not because you use “tools” to cope with anger. But because no situation is worthy enough to elicit such a childish, emotional response.
Nonviolence means staying calm and in control in any conversation or situation.
It means never lying and knowing when you’re being lied to.
Nonviolence is more than the opposite of violence. It’s not some left-wing buzzword for protests and demonstrations.
Nonviolence is an active, ongoing discovery process.
We can’t uninvent guns. The question is: who should have legitimate ownership and use of them?
Appealing to a monopoly of violence with its democratic tendencies toward populism and entrenched special interests is not the right answer.
Like with money, we cannot trust the power of weapons to a small minority. But unlike money, a tool that aids creation, people use weapons for defence and destruction.
One could argue that for these reasons, society cannot permit the distribution of guns the same way we do other goods.
We cannot agree on a “rule of law” except through a violent monopoly.
But governments can’t keep track of their own tax loopholes which the rich have the resources to exploit and the middle-class do not.
Governments can’t control cryptocurrencies.
They can’t control the production of 3D-printed “ghost” guns and other future technology.
The world is changing whether we like it or not. We can’t keep relying on these 18th-century constitutional fiefdoms.
Not if we want to ensure freedom and prosperity and a tamed (if not destroyed) ManBearPig for our children and grandchildren.
But we won’t find answers in specific political ideologies, systems, or beliefs about what the “proper” policy is or should be.
As I said, if everyone woke up with a complete understanding of the Rothbardian worldview tomorrow morning, what would change?
We’d be able to keep these constitutional democracies with their monopoly on gun control without them becoming so corrupt.
The state and its violent monopoly may whither away in time, but it’d remain for now.
Because real change comes from individuals. Real change stems from one’s personal growth and spiritual awakening.
Real change comes from within. As Jesus said (in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas):
There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he is darkness.
A better world — freer, fairer cleaner, with opportunity and optimism— won’t come from politics.
It won’t come from voting for a particular party or politician, passing certain legislation, or propagating the masses to adopt a new ideology.
It comes from within you.
And only then does the revolution emerge as surely as the sunrise.