Elections, bioleninism and accelerationism
Accelerationism is hardly more than (a) collaboration with the current elites or (b) the reckless fantasy of armchair survivalists.
In a previous Bournbrook column I discussed the way democratic voting is seen as both ineffective and undesirable by many. I concluded by writing that I would vote anyway, supporting any cause that seemed to provide opposition, knowing that true opposition will never be tolerated by the system.
As it happened, there was only one issue on the ballot in Bristol last week: should Bristol be governed by a mayor (as it is currently) or by committees formed of council members? I voted in favour of committee rule, as did fifty-nine per cent of voters. Accordingly, the post of Mayor will be abolished in 2024. The current incumbent is Marvin Rees, whose failings I have previously discussed. In Bristol, bastion of progressivism, the only hope of ousting a Labour mayor is that the leftist majority vote is sufficiently split between Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens; then, of course, you get a left-leaning Conservative or independent. So, no change there.
The cause of Bristolian discontent is unclear. It could have been revulsion at the massive cost of this vainglorious position, disgust at Rees’s incompetence or anger at him supporting a mob illegally destroying public property (the toppling of the Colston statue). So, my side won – and yet, naturally, it has not gained anything. Governance through a series of committees will doubtlessly be more inscrutable than the actions of a single high-profile figure. Committees will be as profligate and unaccountable as the current Mayor is. Personnel may change, policies will not.
If we want to “Clear them out” – as has become the rallying cry of dissidents – then one route is systemic failure. If our sham democracy were to collapse, it could be rebuilt from first principles. In that respect, a hapless mayor burning through taxpayer money is an ideal lightning rod for opposition to the whole system. Accelerationists would prefer to have waste and blatant partisanship evident; better still, should services actually cease, there would arise an opportune crisis. The failure of the Bristol Mayoralty makes the case for system removal more eloquently than a fringe commentator could.
If you dislike the progressive Mayor, this verdict is a victory; if you oppose progressive politics, this verdict changes nothing; if you want massive realignment of public values, this verdict is a minor setback. Fear not for the hapless Rees. He will be parachuted into a Parliamentary safe seat or will become a director of a social-justice NGO, working in partnership with national or local government.
Incompetent politicians in a progressive system is one result of bioleninism. Spandrell coined this term in a 2017 article “Biological Leninism”.
“Socialism works not only because it promises higher status to a lot of people. Socialism is catnip because it promises status to people who, deep down, know they shouldn't have it. […] Basic biology tells us people are different. Some are more intelligent, more attractive, more crafty and popular. […] Being generous, all human societies default to a Pareto distribution where 20% of people are high-status, and everyone else just has to put up with their inferiority for life. That's just how it works. Socialism though promised to change that, and Marx showed they had a good plan. Lenin then put that plan to work in practice.”
Bioleninism describes a system of patronage, where unsuitable individuals (those who would not advance due to merit or achievement) attach themselves to establishment patronage. There develops a reciprocal relationship of dependence, wherein the client individual (appointed not for competence but for his or her loyalty) works for a patron organisation in return for income, status and influence; the patron organisation consolidates power through having loyal individuals tied to it because they could not achieve comparable advantages in a competitive system. Both clients and patrons are bound together because if the system were to fail, they would both suffer; they have too much to lose to allow a more competent regime to arise.
Inevitably, every bioleninist system grows ever more dysfunctional as corruption and incompetence proliferate, as we find in American cities ruled by the Democrat Party. Witness the astronomical rise in crime, poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, gang violence and social breakdown in those areas. Although we would benefit from a system that relied on competent officials not bioleninist patronage, accelerationists say “No, let them stay in place. Visible dysfunction will mobilise and validate the rise of a competing elite, with new vigorous values, which will replace the current system.”
I have always opposed accelerationism from a purely selfish perspective. Complete societal collapse (or even widespread long-lasting lawlessness) entails supremacy and survival with those with the means of securing the necessities of life. In a society where firearms exist, how can a person, family or clan without firearms survive? In the UK, the only groups with guns are the army, police and criminals. Aside from those few individuals with hunting rifles or shotguns, the British population is unarmed. In a tribal society – which is what any post-collapse Western country would become, at least for a period – you survive because you are armed or because you are protected by individuals who are armed. American survivalists may nurture the delusion that a lone armed householder can fend off a gang of equally armed besiegers; but, as unarmed people, we can nurture no such delusions. Societal collapse means internecine conflict, forced migration, widespread murder and mass starvation. In effect, it means death for the majority of the population of any urbanised modern society. That would include me and the people closest to me; it would most likely mean you too.
No, of course, voting changes nothing but accelerationism is hardly more than (a) collaboration with the current elites or (b) the reckless fantasy of armchair survivalists. The best we can do is inform receptive individuals about our values, trusting that if the opportunity for dramatic reform of society presents itself, we and people sympathetic to our outlook gain control.
