Who Audits Auditors, if not Accountants?

Everyone in the Western world and elsewhere knows that the Liberal Capitalist have been espousing their versions of “freedom” and their “democracy” since 1945. What everyone should realize is that there is no single definition of “freedom” and “democracy.” Different conceptions of “freedom” and “democracy” have existed and will continue to remain open to those who seek them. Political Science, what is in final analysis “Political Statecraft,” was originally understood to be an Artform to blaze new paths. Any true opposition to Neoliberalism demands revolutionary proposals to replace its paradigms of Political Liberalization, Economic Liberalization, and Social Liberalization.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more apparent than in the concept of “Technology.” No Technology should ever be understood in terms of machinery and software. It must always be understood as a ‘Technique’, a way in which something could be achieved by someone. A political scientist is in the best position to provide the knowledge base for others to develop the Techniques of any proposed Technology.

The same logic applies more so within Accounting, as there are no philosophical or theoretical concepts and ideas to impart. The search for the true Value mathematically coincides with a concurring search for the true Etymology–the historical meaning–behind whatever numbers are recorded as the Value. In Accounting, it has always been the accountants who record and process the transfers of currency on financial ledgers, their handiwork evaluated by auditors who enforce transparency and accountability.

The Liberal Capitalist conception of Accounting, building upon past experiences between the discovery of the Americas and the Enlightenment, only realized its contemporary incarnation experiences in the 20^th century as a result of the Great Depression and the two World Wars. The perceived dynamism of Economic Liberalization–the ‘Capitalism’ in Liberal Capitalism–throughout the late 20^th century was the result of Liberal Capitalist developments in the Accounting Profession.

To those who have advocated for any ideology other than Neoliberalism, ask oneself this important question: has one ever stopped to challenge the grand narratives of the statistics provided by Liberal Capitalists? Thanks to the Liberal Capitalists’ “International Accounting Standards (IAS),” developed after the Death of Bretton Woods and later replaced by the “International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS),” anyone can posit reasonable arguments in favor of the Market/Mixed Economy and the Fractional-Reserve Banking System. The statistical data itself was collected by accountants using the Double-Entry Account Bookkeeping System and made available to Liberal Capitalist economists and political scientists.

One could even contextualize the data on some skewed moral plane to claim how “Liberal Capitalism has made more nations freer and wealthier than other ideologies” or why “Liberal Capitalism is more dynamic and competitive compared to other ideologies.” That in turn might dissuade others from even bothering to try and to propose alternatives to Neoliberalism. One ought to know better after reading this Treatise. It is quite naïve to fall for such drivel, especially after realizing that the Double-Entry Account Bookkeeping System is based on a very old propaganda weapon from Ancient Rome to flaunt the economic and financial firepower of the Ancient Romans. Think about it: how does a propaganda weapon end up becoming the basis behind Liberal Capitalist accounting practices? Is it also odd how far too many conceivable alternatives to Neoliberalism, from Social-Democracy to Cryptocurrencies, have at one point or another been coopted by the Liberal Capitalists?

It bears mention that the Liberal Capitalist accounting standards have been designed to operate regardless of whether a Liberal Capitalist regime is running on Production for Profit or Production for Utility. The accounting standards themselves are indiscriminate toward those two Modes of Production. One could nationalize every Enterprise and Industry, nationalize the Financial Regime and eliminate the Financial Markets, impose wage and price controls and trade barriers on behalf of the labor unions, levy countless taxes and regulations. One could even provide free healthcare, education, housing, and transportation. But in the end, one will always remain within the Liberal Capitalists’ grasp in Production for Utility. It is also where the Social-Democrats failed in the 1970s and where today’s so-called “Democratic Socialists” are constantly at risk of repeating over and over.

Production for Utility, when it was conceptualized by Liberal Capitalists, is not designed to exist without Production for Profit. The former was intended to curb the worst excesses of the latter in exchange for curtailing certain economic freedoms in the name of economic security. Think of those two Modes of Production as being no different than a faithful elderly couple who fell in love during childhood. Sure, there may have been some complications in their relationship, yet the marriage remains unbroken despite the many ideological rivals of Neoliberalism. For the ideological rivals of Neoliberalism, their relationship is comparable that of a woman unable escape an abusive relationship because she simply could not be bothered to think for herself.

“Public Finance” or “Political Finance?”

The Accounting Profession in general is hardly apolitical. Like any other Profession, the Accounting Profession can be influenced by the force of a political-economic ideology. Every facet of economic life in the State of Total Mobilization depends on Theory of Value and a corresponding Theory of Money. Without them, the Accounting Profession is incapable of ascertaining the true Value, let alone its true Etymology.

The overarching purpose of the Accounting Profession is to provide the necessary financial data for others outside the Accounting Profession to make appropriate decisions regarding a given currency. Every search for the true Value ends with the decision to begin allocating currency toward a particular goal. The ‘How’ goes farther than in terms of ‘how much’. Another aspect pertains to how the currency was spent and what came about as a result of that decision.

Here, the concept of “Public Finance” takes on a whole different meaning. “Political Finance” becomes the means by which currency is gathered, allocated, and spent in a cyclical manner. The Work-Standard offers the Self and the Totality the newfound ability to become far more than just a taxpayer and a voter, a producer and a consumer by striving to harness the full potentiality of the State of Total Mobilization itself. Aside from deciding who should govern on their behalf and what is required for the nation, the Work-Standard also provides them with another ability: to provide the necessary framework to decide how to live their own lives both fiscally and personally within the State of Total Mobilization. The concept of “Fiscal Responsibility” has become Command Responsibility, and the Totality and Self are both responsible for what happens to their State, just as their State is likewise responsible for what happens to them.

In Production for Dasein, the Accounting Profession takes on an entirely different conception under the Work-Standard. Backed by distinct accounting practices and techniques, an Accountant will be able to exercise their Legal Duties and Legal Rights for Arbeit and Geld as opposed to Kapital and Schuld. Different techniques require different technologies. Never pour new wine into old wine bottles.

Categories: Work-Standard Accounting Practices

Tags: Accounting, ARPLAN, Economics, Finance, Fractional-Reserve Banking, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Reciprocal-Reserve Banking, Socialist Finance, Third Place, Total Educational Effort, Total Mobilization, Work-Standard