“capitalism” – newspeak/double talk for neo feudalism. there is no free market.

(via Liam Ocoalithe – many thanks for your wisdom.)

 

neo-feudalism has been building since the war. Corporations are seen as having the same rights as human beings under law. But they can not die like humans.

They are like the Barons given estates by the monarch. The ‘monarch’ in this case is the City of London and the Bar council being the administrators of corporate law that allows these ‘entities’ to exist.

Corporations defend a monopoly position much like the Barons did in their estates under the original Feudalism.

The tories have always defended vested intetests going back to when they defended the inheritors of feudalism with the corn laws which kept cheap corn out of England and enabled the estate owners to name their price for corn.

It was the whigs that supported the new entrepreneurs in manufacturing that locked horns with the tories over allowing free markets.

The whigs are loosely what we would categorise as ‘liberals’ and the Conservatives remain a coalition of the feudal defending tories and the capitalist ‘liberal’ whigs. The pendulum has swung so that now the Neo-Feudalist situation favours the traditional tory support for monoply.

Nowhere on earth does real capitalism exist. China has state regulated monoply industrialisation. Russia has had ‘State Capitalism’ since Lenin promulgated it in 1923. The Corporations in America and Europe use copyright., monoply markets, advertising, and control of the media to circumvent a free market.

We truely live in a Neo-Feudalist world in which power blocks vie for global control. The thing that is conspicuous by its absence in all this is a free market.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on ““capitalism” – newspeak/double talk for neo feudalism. there is no free market.

  1. paul8ar says:

    i believe that the system itself is inherently based on a need to give our power away to leaders and the like. which is subscribed to by our own insecurities. a kind of unhealthy symbiosis.
    at times, such as after ww2, it did seem to be a period of generosity and kindness, respect even, but ultimately it wasn’t sustainable. or we wouldn’t have what we have today.
    i attribute that to a kind of social cancer if you will, that’s inherent in the style of what we have believed to be democracy.
    our thinking and work, finance and social ideologies on all sides are really based on the industrial revolution. including our educational paradigms. what’s happening now is the only inevitable outcome – that the systems we use could only really work foer the same ideology that was around in the 1700s – serfs and feudal barons.
    or it wouldn’t be happening. simple cause and effect, really. left and right politics are just a symptom of that cancer.
    if we could really understand and feel our own true power, the system wouldn’t be needed any more, and the power struggles would be very different.
    if they even were needed any more.

  2. paul8ar says:

    By Robert Reich

    One of the most insidiously deceptive ideas is that the “free market” is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government — so whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. By this view, if some people aren’t paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren’t worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they’ll earn next month or next week, that’s too bad; it’s just the outcome of the market. According to this logic, government shouldn’t intrude on the free market — through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else — because the “free market” knows best and government always messes things up.

    In reality, the “free market” is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protection? ); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives?) (4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); and (5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?).

    In other words, markets don’t exist in a state of nature; they’re human creations. Governments don’t intrude on free markets; governments organize and maintain markets. Markets aren’t “free” of rules; the rules define them. The rules can be designed to maximize efficiency (given the current distribution of resources), or growth (depending on what we’re willing to sacrifice to obtain that growth), or fairness (depending on our ideas about a decent society). They can even be designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top, and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure.

    If our democracy was working as it should, elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable “free market.”

    Which is all to say: If we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we have the right to do so. But we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours.

    MH

  3. paul8ar says:

    Albert Einstein on capitalism:

    “Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s