What enemy and what tactics?

Our enemy is an internal one. One hellbent on destroying our democracy.

Returning us to a life of serfdom and misery. A feudal system where a few masters own all, including you and all your possessions. 

In a democracy, the economy is supposed to serve the needs of the majority. 

This includes all policies, practices, procedures, and systems. 

This objective is clear enough, but not everybody agrees with it. 

Those who disagree wish to pursue their own self-interests. 

Interests which do not align with those of the majority. 

But how in a democracy do people go about implementing policies, practices, procedures, and systems which do not serve majority needs? 

Let’s be clear: focusing on majority needs does not mean neglecting the minority. However, there is a big difference when those minority needs are contrary to those of the majority, weakening them in favour of a tiny minority. 

So, how in a democracy does a tiny minority implement policies detrimental to the majority? 

It can only be done in an underhand way through manipulation, exploitation, extortion, and other criminal activities. These activities fall under the heading of

Any action which deliberately and knowingly corrupts the course of democracy by implementing policies, practices, procedures, and systems contrary to the interests of the majority is a form of corruption. 

This is a new form of economic corruption. To change policies, practices, procedures, and systems across the entire economy to serve the needs of a tiny minority, contrary to democratic objectives. 

This goes well beyond our current narrow definition of economic corruption, which is defined as the misuse of public resources for personal gain by individuals or groups. It typically involves illegal or unethical behaviour. This type of economic corruption is small and inconsequential when compared to the scale and extent of this new economic corruption. 

For this new economic corruption to be successful, it needs to extend beyond government corruption to include the world of business and civil society. 

This is necessary to limit enquiring minds from challenging the changes being introduced, which don’t make any democratic sense. To help them support and promote their lies, misleading information, and obfuscation necessary to implement blatantly anti-democratic policies, practices, procedures, and systems. 

To get anti-democratic policies implemented in a democracy means they have to hide what they are doing from the majority in a clever but deceitful way. To lie to us, telling us what they are doing is in our best interests when it's not. To mislead us, provide partial information and hide critical facts. To make things appear complex and difficult when they are not. In other words, to apply every dirty trick in the book to deceive us. 

They have done this so cleverly that many practices, procedures, and systems masquerade as “good business practice” while many others remain unobtrusive and unchallenged, yet deeply anti-social and undemocratic. 

Let’s start by looking at how the rich have been able to corrupt our democracy and get our economy to work for them when they only represent a tiny percentage of the electorate. 

They employ the following techniques/methods to influence government decisions unfairly and undemocratically. These are the corrupting influencers.

1. Lobbying.

2. Political Funding.

3. Revolving Door.

4. Revolving Door variants.

5. Cronyism.

6. Media.

7. Corruption.

8. Unfair Tax System.

9. Lack of Transparency.

10. Political Polarisation.

11. Biased Guidance.

12. Think Tanks / Campaign Groups.

13. Poor Oversight.

14. Poor Public Awareness.

15. Capture of regulatory bodies.

16. Capture of associations and institutes. 

All of the above are used extensively and are highly effective in changing policies. 

To implement them at scale requires great resources, which the rich have an abundant supply of. Their financial muscle overcompensates their tiny number. The problem with these corrupting influencers is that they are not illegal, but they can be used undemocratically. When deliberately used in an undemocratic manner to serve self-interests rather than those of the majority, they become illegal. However, it is extremely difficult to distinguish and prove the difference between legal and illegal intent. The dividing line is fine, like separating hero and coward or genius and fool. This provides the rich with the ideal cover. They can operate under the banner of legitimacy while acting illegally.

As mentioned briefly earlier, these corrupting influencers are directed at government, business, and civil society. 

The objectives for their three-pronged attack on democracy are as follows: -

1. Government and quasi-government bodies - to influence policies and regulations and gain control over regulatory bodies.
2. Business world – to control professional bodies, their associations, and institutions. This includes all professions associated with business, together with organisations like the Chamber of Business and other organisations representing business interests.
3. Civil Society – to control academia and technical colleges, to influence future generations and indoctrinate them. They also establish pseudo “Think Tanks” supposedly dedicated to improving life for the majority but do nothing of the sort other than propagate neoliberal dogma. They should more correctly be referred to as warped “Propaganda Pods.”

They want to eliminate all intelligent thought as their dogma is established on a shaky, unfounded hypothesis. Furthermore, the results of mismanaging our economy are becoming more apparent, and, therefore, it’s more difficult to hide and bullshit people. They need people to unwaveringly believe in their system – to see it as if it were a religious truth, not to be questioned. Take Margaret Thatcher's lack of wisdom – TINA (There is No Alternative) when much better alternatives were available. She lacked the capacity to see them, as do most politicians today who suffer from the same incapacity. Much of this is due to their myopic understanding, thanks to the corrupting influencers described above. Take recent comments made by Rishi Sunak (UK’s PM) – “Of course, I’m a conservative and want to cut taxes.”  Oh no - heaven forbid. 

Let's be clear: in the post-World War II period, neoliberal “fathers” like Hayek, Friedman and other backward-looking neoliberals were thought of as ideological pariahs. They were regarded, quite simply, as ‘cranks’. Blamed for causing the Great Depression in the 1930s and the global conflict that followed. The success of state wartime planning further undermined them. Laissez-faire economics appeared to be ideologically bankrupt (which it is.) 

Across Western Europe, millions of workers radicalised by the experience of total war demanded far-reaching social reforms in peacetime at the expense of big business and the wealthy. Socialist and Social Democratic parties swept to power as part of coalition governments or – as in Britain, Sweden, and Norway – as governments in their own right. 

Threatened by powerful left-wing forces, the right had little choice but to abandon its traditional embrace of laissez-faire economics – which it did until, nearly three decades later, when a small group of ideologues seized an unmissable opportunity in the 1970s. 

This opportunity was discontent with the current economic and political situation, which created a conducive environment for neoliberal ideas to gain traction. So, a small group of economists and policymakers associated with neoliberalism, including Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, formed the Mont Pélérin Society to promote neoliberalism. They seized upon what they saw as an unmissable opportunity to promote their economic and political ideology. 

Since then, things have changed radically, and now, social market thinkers are seen as ‘cranks’. They are ostracised as backward Luddites. Laughed at for having outrageously stupid ideas such as increasing taxes on the rich and increasing the size of government. However, the last laugh will be with stupid fools like me. 

In simple terms, social market policies are based on striking a balance between social and market needs, whereas free markets only consider the needs of the market (the rich.) What do you think works best for all - a balanced or imbalanced system? All natural systems work best when balanced. Imbalanced systems cause harm before crashing, taking most with them.

Now, we have seen how a tiny minority can corrupt the course of democracy and get the economy to serve them; in Part II, I will explain what they have corrupted and how it’s hurting us all.

You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at

https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/