Digital Direct Democracy, episode #2

BING Copilot helps me to update and compress the ideas I wrote about in early 2023 for the Kindle ebook (”citizen white paper”) by this name. This episode continues to describe “The Problem”.

Comments on Communism and Fascism

Traditional Communism represents a form of national governance where the state owns and manages all "means of production” including businesses and farms. In the context of 20th-century Russian Communism, it's essential to recognize that the term "means of production" encompasses both non-human capital (such as buildings, machinery, materials, and vehicles) and human capital (the workforce). A poignant quote from a former Russian plant worker encapsulates the disillusionment:

"We pretended to work, and they pretended to pay us."

Under Russian Communism, the productive value of all capital stock deteriorated. The concept of the “greater good" theoretically owned non-human capital, yet practical neglect prevailed. Maintenance, repairs, and upgrades were often overlooked because no individual person felt any responsibly for things they did not own.

The notion of the “greater good” was an abstract idea too impersonal and disconnected from reality to be taken seriously. Consider this. Have YOU ever shared a meal or drink with the intangible “greater good"?

It's no surprise that Russian Communism faltered when incentives for productivity and asset maintenance were absent.

Now, let's explore Fascism—an intermediate stage toward Communism

Benito Mussolini, as Italy's dictator between WW1 and WW2, practiced traditional Fascism. However,

Fascism didn't vanish. It evolved and infiltrated Western democracies in various forms: Crony Capitalism, Crony Socialism, and Crony Statism. These ideologies share a common objective with Communism: control over the means of production. This control is established through ownership of legislated power (government institutions) and regulation of commercial enterprises (businesses).

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) gained in popularity since Mussolini flexed his muscles over Italy. These collaborations aimed to leverage public institutions' strengths (such as access to public funds and regulatory expertise) alongside the human capital and resources of businesses. Initially, PPPs sought superior outcomes for “the public good”. However, the dynamics and motives shifted over time. The partners increasingly prioritized their mutual interests often at the expense of the public.

The Intersection of Government-Corporate Partnerships and Socialism

To underscore this evolution, the “partnerships” between government entities (comprising funding sources, central planners, and rules enforcement) and corporations (including property owners and producers) have become entrenched and systemic fixtures within our provincial and national economic landscapes. These arrangements predominantly serve the interests of corporate and government collaborators, often at the expense of everyone else.

Now, let’s delve into Socialism:

Traditional Socialism functions as a wealth distribution mechanism, with the government acting as the intermediary.

Authorized by legislation, governments wield the power to levy taxes and employ other “revenue tools” to confiscate a portion of earnings from productive individuals and private corporations.

Then, as if by some mystical transformation, these earnings are transmuted into “PUBLIC PROPERTY,” granting politicians and public officials the authority to distribute them based on political criteria.

The beneficiaries include individuals and organizations orbiting within the sphere of governmental influence, all in service of advancing specific political priorities.

Enter the concept of “pixified money” - the use of pixie dust to transform your earnings into ‘public property’. This ethereal currency soften flows toward strategically chosen segments of society—advocacy groups and associations—whose members self-identify as “victims” of an “oppressor” class who are the rich and powerful, often referred to as the “patriarchy.”

The patriarchy are alleged to have unjustly exploited and disadvantaged the “oppressed”. Both groups—the oppressors and the oppressed—are not more broadly delineated in recent times by socio-economic or “identity” metrics, such as skin colour, race, gender, sexual preference, wealth, and greed (example: the well paid corporate executives and “old money” families). When the ‘victim’ groups attain sufficient size and activism, they attract politicians’ attention, who, in their quest for votes, make promises they often cannot fulfill.

Karl Marx is widely regarded as the father of Socialism. His ideas have left an indelible mark on the work cultures of universities, public schools, labor unions, and other public enterprises. Socialism remains central to discussions about economic systems, sparking ongoing debates and shaping the course of history.

Marx claimed that “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

Others saw  Socialism as the stepping stone to Communism.

In both cases, the goal has been to control the means of production to fulfill an idealistic promise based on wealth distribution:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

This Marxist principle emphasizes the importance of developing economic, intellectual, and cultural forces in order for society to transition into the higher phase of communism.”

Wink, wink; Nudge, nudge.

Unfortunately, the successes of left-leaning political parties over the past 60 years have continually nudged Canada further along the road to Digital Communism using the utopian promises of Socialism. The Canadian population has never more dependent on the public honey pot of power, privilege and money than it is today.

Is this the future that ALL Canadians want,m or just those who are addicted to OPM (Other Peoples Money)?

Is there an equivalent to the 12-Step Programme of Alcoholics Anonymous to offer a path out of this pernicious depency?

Let’s see what possibilities may exist in future episodes.