Some of my views have changed or evolved and some of them remain the same. Like many who are have been appalled at the excesses of capitalism, over the last few decades, I made the mistake of allowing socialism and statism to get the better of me: regarding Government (or The State) as a force against the polarisation of wealth and a guardian of freedom against large corporations, when, in reality, The State, to varying extents over time, has been either been colluding with conglomerates to deprive the majority of aspects of independence and self-determination, or actually, doing it all by itself.
Hence, over more recent years I have been considering the concept of Anarchism, having been drawn to it by my friend and erstwhile Liberal Democrat colleague, Jock Coats. I should explain that anarchism is a belief in a stateless (not lawless) society and has nothing to do with throwing fire extinguishers through high street store windows. For reasons I may explain in a subsequent article, I have, however, not seen such a belief as a panacea to how people should live. Nevertheless, my contemplation of it, has proved very useful in re-igniting the libertarianism in me which was becoming all but extinguished as an angry reaction to economic and social events that took place over the last 30 years or so.
For now though, I just wanted to focus on one aspect of my opinion: part of which has remained firm and part of which has changed:
I have always been a passionate advocate of small businesses, which, by their very nature, are privately, rather than state-owned, and are a feature of a free market. Albeit rather unconsciously, I have, in the past struggled to reconcile this with an opposition to privatisation and a baulking at the idea of introducing market forces into state-supplied goods such as health and education. More recently, I think I have reached a reconciliation of such a dichotomy by drawing a very important distinction between the free market and capitalism.
Much of the prevailing political and economic opinion (on
all sides) seems to assume that the free market and capitalism are synonymous.
I maintain they are not. For me, the free market is (or at least should be) an
opportunity for the majority of individuals to create wealth for themselves;
capitalism is the means by which the majority is coerced into creating wealth,
not for themselves, but for a few others. It is the latter that I find repellent
– not absolutely, but to the extent that it has been “allowed” to prevail in
the way it has.
The aggressive advance of unfettered capitalism has seen certain
corporations grow, merge, and grow again, at alarming rates, stifling any
competition. With State assistance capitalism cripples and destroys the
lifeblood that is small business and, hence, erodes rather than promotes a free
market, forcing the majority to pay ever increasing prices for ever deteriorating
goods and services, facilitating a self-perpetuating (and very dangerous)
polarisation of wealth.
Having made such a distinction and thereby, identifying a
problem, one may be part way to suggesting a solution. I am not sure that I
have yet, but aim to get there one day. However, I do not see the solution as
the removal of The State altogether as I am convinced that capitalism is
perfectly capable of thriving without any assistance from Government, notwithstanding
that the latter has, indeed, been partly accountable.
This, I grant you, is a very brief overview of some very
complex issues and will pose many questions and provide much food for thought.
I hope, in future articles, to provide further critiques of “The State” and
endeavour to explain why I favour its reform rather than its abolition.
