I have been thinking about the word ‘totalitarianism’. Here is a definition, according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

“”Totalitarian: of or being a political system in which those in power have complete control and do not allow people freely to oppose them.””

There are interesting articles on Wikipedia about the word. Oddly enough, it seems that Communist writers were the first to use that word, and they used it to describe fascist government systems, such as the Italian fascist regime of Mussolini. Odd, is it not, that Communist States adopted totalitarian methods?

Look at the definition again, and observe the essence of totalitarianism:

  • Those in power have complete control.
  • People are not free to oppose them.

You can look at this system in very big generic terms – that is, as regards politics in general. Or, you can look at it as it affects individual persons.

I have recently had reason to take up the cause of an unemployed youth. He is harmless and decent. the State decided to withdraw his jobseeker’s allowance for twenty six weeks because he did not attend an appointment on a Jobseeker’s Employment Programme. Twenty six weeks equals a ‘fine’ of over £1300. That is, he has been deprived of ‘money that the Government say that he needs to live on’ for twenty six weeks – because he did not attend this excuse for an ’employment programme’  (it seems that this ’employment programme’ means making minor adjustments to your CV and then sending off job apps to pre-arranged job providers). Needless to say, he has received NOT ONE offer of even an interview, never mind an actual job offer. And yet the Jobcentre have fined him £1300 for not turning up at this silly, pointless appointment.  Is the Jobcentre under instructions from above to reduce the cost of jobseeker benefits by any legal means possible? It certainly looks that way to me. 

The example which I have quoted above is an example of modern day totalitarianism, since it imposes duties upon all the people without allowing them to disagree with those duties. And these practices are supposedly ‘legal’ because X number of MPs stuck their hands in the air and shouted, “AYE!”  Is it any wonder that youths have rioted? 

So, as regards an individual person, the ‘system’ brooks no dissent. 

Not only that, but the system is corrupt.

The operatives in the jobseeker system are a law unto themselves. They can do whatever they wish within the rules. Needless to say, the rules favour the operatives – they can delay and delay – there is no rule that says that they cannot. There are rules which say that a jobseeker can appeal against a ruling, but every obstacle imaginable is put in his way – loads of paperwork and legal mumbo-jumbo. It is hard to imagine how an ordinary person could possibly cope with this stuff. But……..CATCH 22!………….the person is not allowed to claim the cost of a solicitor!  So the Jobcentre can employ legal experts, but the Jobseeker cannot, without incurring actual, personal expense. 

Further, there is serious doubt in my mind that the jobs which jobseekers are encouraged to apply for actually exist. It would not surprise me if the ‘job providers’   invent them, as requested – for a fee, of course.

The system tends to corruption by  its nature. Totalitarian systems tend to corruption. They just do – largely because they are rule-bound and  there is no reason that they should not. “Quis costodiat Costodies?” (Who guards the guards?)

As regards the enjoyment of tobacco, we see similar events occurring. The ‘facts’ cannot be denied; the ‘system’ is in place; ordinary people cannot say, “NO!” Corruption is rife.



%d bloggers like this: