Welcome to Neo-Feudalism

by FJ Rocca9/3/16

It is only necessary to look around to see the living proof of the great value of capitalism. It’s a thing to ponder. The simple, naked truth is that without capitalism there can be no wealth. Every time something is exchanged, a service or goods, every time a trade is made, whether by the exchange of money or barter, it is a capitalist transaction. Without the manufacture of goods or the selling of a service in trade, there can be no wealth. Early humans trading animal skins for stone axes were taking part in a form of capitalism.

Yet, no institution is more roundly condemned than capitalism. The loudest condemnation comes from the Left, mostly from those in government and the media, whose very megaphones have been paid for by some of the most powerful capitalists in human history. The Left claims to hate capitalism. But the Left loves wealth generated by it. What’s interesting is that they all get rich while shouting their condemnation of the very system that provides their burgeoning wealth, wealth they mostly did not actually earn. Among the Left are some of the greediest people on the face of the earth. Greedy people want rewards without expending the commensurate effort required to generate it.

Obama condemns capitalism while doubling or tripling his net worth. Hillary Clinton condemns Wall Street while taking Wall Street money for her campaigns and for the Clinton Foundation. Al Sharpton condemns white fat cats… but enough said about a man too repugnant and absurd for serious discussion, and who has profited richly from his own racism.

Bernie Sanders condemns The Rich, of course, and he is not himself very rich. Bernie Sanders is said to be a sincere Socialist. Sincerity in this matter does not guarantee mental health, however, and Bernie Sanders is clearly either not as sincere as people think or he is completely insane. But of course, Bernie Sanders is also not stupid. He wants to impose a 90% income tax on persons making a lot of money. Even crazy Bernie realizes that if The Rich did not make a lot of money, he could not seize a lot of money from them. It’s simple math. 90% of nothing is… well, nothing. If Bernie Sanders truly hated business as much as he says, why does he not demand that businesses simply stop doing business? The reason is simple, of course. He is not quite as sincere as he says he is, because he knows that if they didn’t do business anymore, President Sanders wouldn’t have a society from which to rob their wealth through confiscatory taxation. Without capitalism there is no wealth. Period.

Even feudalism ran on a base of capitalism. Goods were produced and sold so that wealth could be generated. The guilds provided services that added to the economy. Banking may have been condemned in ways, even by the Church, but it was recognized as a necessary feature of any economy. And as wealth was generated, revenue was taken through taxation. Without banking and other capital ventures, Robin Hood would have had nothing to steal in Sherwood Forest and the Sheriff of Nottingham would have been unable to chop up those poor farmers who refused—or were unable—to pay their taxes.

In communist China, capitalism is “allowed” to flourish. There is a reason. In fact, China was in such bad straits economically without outside help that it was forced to admit free enterprise that isn’t completely free, but is most certainly based on capitalism. They gave it a different name, state capitalism, so that nobody would realize they’d switched their public ideology, thus altering their propaganda line. They didn’t want to admit that communism is a hoax. It benefits no one, not even the cutthroat dictators who run the country, if there is no wealth to seize. Even communists like wealth. They just want someone else to work for it.

Fundamentally, capitalism is the ownership of the means of production and the right of use and disposal of the capital and the profit that capital generates from the sale of goods and services. In modern societies, where goods and services are not bartered, capitalism is trade in exchange for money. Money is good. Even in the USSR capitalism reigned. The difference there was that the state owned the capital. It was the capitalist. Of course, that system didn’t work very well. It wasn’t very profitable, because if so much is seized, why bother to earn it? Any form of Socialism kills initiative. Just as a camel is said to be a horse designed by committee, you can’t run a capitalist system—even a state capitalist system—by oligarchy. A business without a central head and the profit motive is the committee and that business becomes the camel created by it. Without the motive of private ownership, there is no motive for work. Period.

Socialists and communists are con-men. So are social democrats—read that liberal democrats—who are nothing more than socialists in disguise. And like everybody who preaches socialism, they are crooks. They haven’t a sincere bone in their bodies. They are the greediest people in the world, because they lust for wealth. But they don’t actually earn it. They steal it through fraud. They tell you that wealth is bad, so they will take it from you to save your soul through their benevolent socialist actions. They tell you that charity is good, so they force you to be charitable. It isn’t charity, of course, because charity requires intent; it must be voluntary or it isn’t charitable. What they practice is theft and, through redistribution, they buy the votes that keep them in power, so that they can continue to steal and redistribute. They explain this by promising to pool all the money and give some of it back to you. But what they give back is hardly equal to what they take. It is a statistical fact that. for every five-dollar-bill government takes, it gives back two singles.

Their rhetoric consists of whispering behind their hands, that most of it will come from The Rich. “They have plenty of it,” they will tell you. “We’re going to share it with you.” But they won’t. Obama is filthy rich (with emphasis on the filthy part). Hillary and Bill Clinton are disgustingly rich (disgusting, because they didn’t earn a dime of it). If you steal from your neighbor and sell his lawnmower in your yard sale, you are a crook, even if you promise to give him a portion of the proceeds. The Clintons did this with your government’s assets, mostly its information, its intelligence and its influence. They are crooks, make no mistake. Do you know that not a single member of either house of Congress relies on Social Security for retirement income? They “voted” themselves engorged retirement packages, some in the millions, enabling them to buy mansions and other assets. They have other perks such as permanent security details and expense accounts. They got not a penny of any of this through any form of Socialist ideal. They got it by stealing proceeds from the hard work of their constituents, from their income via taxation, through the stolen profits made possible… through capitalism! Harry Reid may condemn the banks, but he knows that without them, he would not be rich.

One of the biggest proponents of the Left ideology is George Soros, who became a billionaire by “breaking the Bank of England” and pocketing the proceeds from the manipulation of currency. That was a form of false capitalism that produced nothing but personal wealth for Soros. Yet Soros is still a capitalist because he uses capitalism to get rich. But Soros has for at least a generation spoken against capitalism by funding various organizations that made possible the careers of Barack Obama and others. He gave them the megaphones of anti-capitalism, set them on a Leftist stage and told them to retch their anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Among the anti-capitalist rants made by Obama and Hillary Clinton is condemnation of the use of coal. She said she’d put “a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” But while Obama and Clinton try their best to destroy the coal industry in the US, George Soros buys up a million shares in coal stocks! The logic of this is irresistible. Soros, who funded Green Energy, and also owns gold, silver, and many, many other investment interests, has no more ideology than the man in the moon. He is a capitalist, albeit he works his capitalism not through productivity, but through manipulation that borders on outright fraud.

Real capitalists create wealth. Soros manipulates markets to steal it. He is not really an investor. He’s a kind of con-man. His is not true capitalism, but a perversion that uses legitimate productive capitalism to siphon off profits that come originally from the initiative of honest productivity. But, without capitalism nobody gets rich, not Soros, Obama or the Clintons. Bill Gates said not long ago that Socialism was the only way to save the world. Sure. Should we gather from this that he is first in line to give away ALL of his wealth in the interests of society? Of course not. He doesn’t really give it away, either. He invests it in ventures that manipulate policy. He is a feudalist, plain and simple.

The whole argument against capitalism is a sham that even those promoting it don’t believe. They sell the lie while pocketing the wealth stolen with the false promise of sharing it. Those who preach against capitalism while benefiting from it are liars. In fact, they are aiming for something else. They are aiming for Neo-Feudalism, a society divided by class, with themselves as the new “landed gentry” who will rule by hereditary plenary rights. Make no mistake. Not a single one of them—except perhaps the insane Bernie Sanders—has the slightest interest in what is defined as Socialism. They know it is an unworkable hoax, proven historically to be a colossal failure. What they want is power. They want to rule.

A strong middle class, which was the exemplary feature of a free capitalist country run the way America once was run and the way it is supposed to be run, is the antithesis of class rule. Classes dissolve in a free capitalist system because through ingenuity and the expense of energy, anyone can gain wealth and thus move up the social order. That is a form of meritocracy. Bill Gates is the perfect example of this. He and his associates who founded Microsoft started with almost nothing, working in Gates’s father’s garage (so the legend goes) and they built one of the biggest, most lucrative and successful business in the history of humankind, the model of entrepreneurial investment of will, energy and initiative. Every young entrepreneur imagines starting a business in a garage! It’s become a cliché, a part of the mythology of business.

So why does Gates now preach Socialism, which has proven over and over to be an unrealistic impossibility. Because, when anyone who is rich preaches socialism, they mean it not for themselves, but for the rest of us, you and me. As a billionaire Gates knows that it is possible to insulate himself from society at large, from ordinary people, who, to him, are part of the rabble to be ruled. Why? Because like so many of the powerful rich, he has grown tired of mere wealth and wants to run things.

And how do they do that? Autocratically. That is by definition a form of feudalism. The difference is that the top class, always the wealthiest, will not be the traditional landed gentry, but the billionaire class, in which Gates, Soros, and others who have accumulated obscene amounts of wealth—obscene being the operant word where the Clintons are concerned—expect to rule the rest of us rabble (you and me) “the people” who need to be governed and controlled.

In their desired model there are stratified levels, just as there were in old feudal societies: other entrepreneurs will be encouraged to strive to join the uppermost class, producing the wealth that fuels economy; the lawyers and bankers will be the servant class; and, of course, there will be those others among us who will be able to rise in some limited way toward the cream at the top of the jug.

However, the lie of Socialism has not quite taken hold. People are angry and the present power structure is being threatened dangerously by the current surge of populism. This populism is actually a reaction against the sudden realization of overwhelming corruption among those in government and in the institutions which serve it, for example, the pundits and news mongers who distort truth to serve those in power. It is an opportunity to displace the entrenched establishment and to turn its mythological cries for democratic socialism on those who preach it. Only by electing someone who will take a sword—or at least a hammer—to the strangling Gordian knot of political corruption in the Establishment can we, the American people, take back our country and re-establish the predominance of the American Middle Class, and by so doing reestablish the place of America in the world.


Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (452 views)

FJ Rocca

About FJ Rocca

FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Welcome to Neo-Feudalism

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    So why does Gates now preach Socialism, which has proven over and over to be an unrealistic impossibility. Because, when anyone who is rich preaches socialism, they mean it not for themselves, but for the rest of us, you and me. As a billionaire Gates knows that it is possible to insulate himself from society at large, from ordinary people, who, to him, are part of the rabble to be ruled. Why? Because like so many of the powerful rich, he has grown tired of mere wealth and wants to run things.
    And how do they do that? Autocratically.

    Many people would say that Gates’ new-found love for education (particularly from a far left wing position) is because he can make a lot of money from it.

    My view on why so many businessmen live capitalist lives and yet kowtow to Leftism is because at some point they long for legitimacy. People who make money are regularly demonized while the moochers are glorified as “not having won life’s lottery” as Bill Gates obviously did. (Apparently he just was lucky.)

    So I think a driving influence on why so many CEOs at least mouth Leftist drivel is because they are trying to buy for themselves social legitimacy. They are paying penance. They are trying to avoid the wrath of being one of those greedy capitalists.

    I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head who preaches hard work and industry as the most benevolent thing to teach other people. And I’m talking major figures such as Bill Gates and just people I know in real life who have had a successful life. Every single one of them goes on and on about their supposed compassion for “the poor” and not a word about what it took for them to be not-poor.

    We’ve become a silly and unserious people whose “morality” is truly Trumpian in every way because it’s an incoherent and childish mess.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    This helps explain why I differentiate free-market capitalism from crony capitalism. Liberals prefer the latter, conservatives (in theory) the former. I’ve long noticed many feudalistic aspects of modern liberalism, especially enviro-zealotry. For example, the costs demanded to “fix” global warming aka climate change function much the same as medieval sumptuary laws. Liberal guilt is somewhat reminiscent of the flagellants.

  3. Rosalys says:

    Bravo! Awesome rant, Mr. Rocca! I’m all for bringing back tar and feathering! Who do we tar first? I don’t know – there are so many worthy candidates. How about we just start with the first one we get a hold of, and move on from there?

  4. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Rocca pretty much nails things here. American progressives, like Democratic Socialists everywhere, love the products of capitalism but hate it that (1) they can’t command large salaries themselves (in other words, they’re envious); and (2) don’t like the free choices that the fellow men can make. Rocca focuses mainly on the greed of this class, but of course they’re also ambitious in the worst sense and, as he says, “What they want is power. They want to rule.” Exactly so.

    Brad points out that many in the business class are seeking social legitimacy, that is, the moral approval of what they see as their fellows, and this is certainly true. Indeed it is the entire appeal of Leftism to the useful idiot class – automatic approval for simply adopting a series of postures such as gay “rights,” gun control, etc. In Bill Gates’ case, however, the actual truth is even worse – he’s both ambitious and surprisingly greedy – I say surprisingly because once someone has that much wealth, the danger is that he will seek power (one of Rocca’s points) and this is certainly true of Gates. But he wants more wealth, too, and at taxpayer expense.

    He stands to profit handsomely from Common Core (with taxpayers picking up most of the tab, of course). And his support for “green energy” boondoggles in the form of research done at taxpayers’ expense is based on his ownership of energy companies which will be positioned to reap enormous profits – once taxpayers pay for the necessary research to make those companies’ products profitable!

    It’s incredible – and disgusting. In the past, the worst thing Gates might do is sell you some bad software like Windows ME. Now he has reached the depths of George Soros-like, comic-book super-villainy. At this point, I really hope he winds up in prison, perhaps for making false statements in order to replace American workers with H1-B immigrants or when he lied under oath at a Congressional hearing. Are you listening, Donald?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think a lot of businessmen would be guilty of fraud regarding H1-B visas. And not merely fraud, then disgusting behavior requiring their employers to train their replacements. (Yes, Disney, I’m talking about you.)

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I agree with your first sentence, but the rest of your first paragraph strays off course.

    Without getting too complicated, here is a simply definition of Capitalism.

    Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.

    You write,

    The simple, naked truth is that without capitalism there can be no wealth.

    This is simply not the case.

    Was there no wealth in ancient Rome where slaves toiled in every possible area including the silver and gold mines which were so important to the empire? Was there no wealth in feudal Europe were serfs were bound to their land not the land to them? Was there no wealth in ancient Greece where various Greek tribes rustled cattle from other Greek tribes? Was there no wealth in ancient Egypt? I could go on and on and on.

    Clearly, there was some wealth being created in these less-than-capitalistic societies else they would not have left such a wonderful monumental heritage to us. Look at the temples, cathedrals, pyramids, etc, etc, etc they built. And these were not privately owned.

    You then write,

    Every time something is exchanged, a service or goods, every time a trade is made, whether by the exchange of money or barter, it is a capitalist transaction.

    Was every exchange made in the Soviet Union a capitalistic transaction?

    In any economic system, a system of exchange of goods and services is used. Not all are capitalistic.

    Finally you write,

    Without the manufacture of goods or the selling of a service in trade, there can be no wealth.

    Of course goods must be made and services rendered for wealth. But were those goods made in the Soviet Union in the 1930’s made by budding capitalists? Who owned those factories? Were those services rendered by the Israelites while building Pharaoh’s pyramids capitalistic? Who owned all of Egypt, at least theoretically? Certainly not the people.

    Goods and services were made and rendered long before anyone thought about capitalism. All economics are not capitalistic economics. I am all for what I prefer to call a “free- market economy”, but I don’t fool myself that wealth cannot be created in other economies, just not as efficiently.

    As to the metaphor that we are the new serfs, well I have been using that for a long time. And it is because serfs do not have the economic freedom afforded in a free-market economy that I use the metaphor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *