Capitalism is worse. Kings were chosen by accident of birth. CEOs are chosen through a contest where the most inhuman psychopath wins.
Capitalism is worse. Kings were chosen by accident of birth. CEOs are chosen through a contest where the most inhuman psychopath wins.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work together for the benefit of all."—John Maynard Keynes
It's not like some dude was suddenly born one day and everyone decided he was in charge. The forefathers of Kings were inhuman psychopaths.
They were often the descendants of conquerors or settlers. While you could overcome competitors justly, being completely ruthless is typically advantageous. Maybe I'm crazy, but perhaps we should implement a governing system that discourages that behavior.
We could make it so that each person, as equals, gets a secret vote to put people in charge of writing laws, managing the treasury, appointing judges and military personnel, etc. In order to stop people from gaining too much power or authority we would limit the growth of their personal assets via tax brackets which increase based on the amount they gain, and when we end up with surplus of funds from taxation we then use that money to provide to the needy and build public goods which enrich everyone's lives.
Some places notionally ran that way. But in reality it was the person putting the crown on a baby's head who was in charge.
I’ve been saying this for years. Some douchebag will always pop up to argue with me saying that under capitalism, the serfs have a choice of whether to work for this king or that king (er, I mean, Company)… and I just laugh and laugh. And point to the existence of Company Towns as a concrete example.
Also under classic Feudalism the lords usually did not micromanage your farm. At harvest time the collector would pass by and you had to fill your quota. How you got there was your problem but also your choice. It was often terrible because the quota was unrealistic, but you had an agency over your own work, that people today often lack.
Once if the things about feudalism though was that the conditions varied widely. One lord might tell you what to plant, when to plant it, and how to treat it. They might even work that field with you. On the other end of the spectrum is the tax collector method you mention. And it could change suddenly too, old lord dies with no male heir. The money and lands go to his daughter's husband who sells the land for more money. New lord shows up and demands a whole second round of taxes to offset buying the land.
Things could be really good when you had a good chain of leaders in feudalism. But they could be so much more bad with just one bad link.
Oh yeah, that's because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.
That's where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could've, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could've made that happen.
However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that's make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.
I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn't some natural state we defaulted to. It didn't happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn't chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.
Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.
Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.
Holy cow. I never thought about it that way.
To be fair mercantilism was highly controlled. The original corporations were created under mercantilism and given such broad monopolies that they had their own soldiers and fought their own wars.
So it wasn't exactly a bastion of choice either. Capitalism was the Democratic backlash against kings giving out monopoly contracts. But it was only ever meant to widen the ownership class so all the nobles and rich people could play, and not just the super connected ones. The workers were never supposed to benefit.
The difference is that under capitalism, the blame is outsourced to the market.
Do company towns still exist?
See also: cities where the healthcare system or hospital system is the largest employer.
Look at oil companies. They have to house a lot of workers in remote areas.
Kings actually used to take care of their subjects, unlike modern capitalists' CEOs.
By what metric?
By the post black plague metric where mistreating workers meant they literally walked off to a better kingdom. It lasted like 2 generations each time.
Debatable honestly. People inherited who were so bat shit insane even the "free market" can't do worse.
Insane people inherit wealth today and lead their "kingdom" to ruin only to be proper up by somebody else only to fail again.
We just haven't had this type of capitalism for long enough to see many Neros that had infinite power and then ruin it completely. We are in the holy Roman empire with 1000+ kingdoms constantly in strive with each other. Some are more powerful than others and ever so often one completely shits the bed because the inherited child is an absolute buffoon.
And Musk can't order you beheaded.
Yet
Also, it was by no means always inheritance. Quite often it was the most power hungry psychopath that won.
I’ll pay you more. Come with me! Well, that and God said that I should be king. It is my divine right! My great grandpa made a deal with his great grandpa! Oh, and never fight uphill, me boys. Not good.
The path to being a CEO of an established company starts with being born in a zip code that offers connections to the wealthy elite. We already have an Aristocracy back.
I'm not disputing that. I said debatable because it was the right word
Don’t most small farmers in the west at least own their own land. So not really like feudalism but I get your point.
Ahh a small rural subset of the population rules their own land. But unfortunately they don't own the rights to their seeds, farming equipment, and the food they produce (sometimes). They produce things that sell for so little sometimes they can't be independent and need trade agreements with other feudal lords that work them to death. Aka a farmer still gets groceries at Walmart, healthcare, seeds from big seed Corp, and tractors from John deere so much so most small independent farmers are closing up shop
Just as residents in cities are progressively owning less of the land they live on family farmers are being pushed out by corporate megafarms.
Oh they're solving that problem as fast as they can. Don't you worry.
I beleive most farms in the UK are leased now days. Not sure about anywhere else though.
Something like 39% in the US too, mostly the best farming areas according to the government's map. There's no cross data though on how many small farm operations in the US have to rent land.
Political power and purchasing power are just two kinds of power. And when those two powers merge - as with wealthy kings of the past or modern politically active business elites - bad things happen.
The CEOs are often just low level lords that get a small percentage of the legal murder they oversee for profit.
The meaningful shareholders know their money is bloodstained, and order the CEOs to do what they do, but don't dirty their hands with the day to day murders, too busy mega yachting.
REMINDER: there are less than 3,000 billionaires on Earth, there are only about 28,000 hundred million plus-inaires on Earth.
They are the greed disease we the billions of humans on earth subsist to serve. CEOs are often merely their top livestock generals, the ones they appoint as their proxies to do their legal murders for them while they live lives of abject gluttony while declaring themselves the hardest workers merely for making broadly cruel dictates into their cell phones from their guard gated world for others like their CEOs to enact.
Don't mistake any of this for publicly traded CEO pity, class traitors or nepo babies one and all, but the CEOs who arent also the meaningful shareholders are Vaders, not Palpatines.
There should be a system that pays for producing value to all life. Something bigger than UN.
This is totally possible under actual democracy, the only challenge is getting enough people to the point where they're not voting against their own long-term interests, and voting system's robust enough to withstand the influence of capital.
What I mean is, there are governments around the world already funding positive things, on the collective purse.
It's just at the moment, it pales in comparison to the stranglehold capitalism has over our economies.
Just saying, we don't need to wait for the entire world to join hands to move towards socialism.
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison’d by their wives: some sleeping kill’d;
All murder’d: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a kingYeah sort of, in the sense of the classes being so far apart. And nepotism hires can feel like hereditary rule.
But companies don't generally go to war with each other. The comparison falls apart if you think about it too hard.
Mergers and acquisitions are quite combative at times, albeit not physically.
When it comes to going outside the western countries, companies absolutely do use violence to get their goals. There is multiple mining companies waging war on indigenous people in South America and Africa, murdering them to steal their lands. Look for the term Banana republic to see how US companies used to slaughter striking employees, etc..
I get that there are similarities, because capitalism came from feudalism. In feudalism the serfs were trading their labor for military safety provided by the king. The king got most of the resources from the serfs, but the serfs got something out of it too. While capitalism you are exchanging labor directly for money. Serfs generally had no ability to leave their kingdom. Under capitalism the employees can choose to quit and work for someone else. They could also start their own business. Starting your own kingdom wouldn't have gone so well under feudalism.
That's why capitalism and feudalism are two different words. They mean two different things.
Pepsi v Cola
Coca Cola Death Squads
Shell African Village Clearances
Banana Republics
Coal wars
Sheep wars
...
And if you want to know how bad it gets without guardrails look up any East Indies Company or West Indies. They literally had militaries and fought literal battles for control of markets and resources.
LMAO bro never heard about Caligula.
He surely thinks Ivan the terrible was great with people hahahha
LMAO bro never heard about Caligula.
You mean the Caligula who was assassinated after a reign shorter than a modern US presidential term? Is that the Caligula that you claim OP is ignorant of and you're not?
I mean there were counts and dukes and shit too. But yeah.