Neofeudalism vs. Socialism
QUESTION:
Martin,
Your grasp (and evidently the computer’s) of historical forces–the Shakespearen drama of it all–is awesome.
But you seem more worried about possible socialism than neofeudalism, in which he rich take us back to the Middle Ages.
Why? And which way do you think it will go, or a third way?
Cheers,
EM
ANSWER: Feudalism did not take place because of the greedy rich. Government collapsed with the Roman Empire following Romulus Augustus. People abandoned their property in Rome and fled away from taxation to the suburbs. With no government, there was no rule of law. People thereby agreed to be serfs to work the land in return for security. This system lasted until the Black Death of the 14th century.
So it was not the “rich” that created the system or the collapse of government. The rich have no power or desire to compel society to accept such a system. For that to emerge, we need a Dark Age with losses of probably 50% of the population through disease/plague, and in turn the collapse of government. Then the landscape would break up into small units for safety. Major corporations would collapse for they need a coherent society to sell products.
The danger of “socialism” is stepping in the direction of communism where it is the government that consumes everything for they have the army, guns, police, whatever. Government seeks to sustain itself and thus consumes everything, which ultimately leads to revolution. The police are already moving toward being the enemy against the people by supporting the state rather than protecting the population. This was the PRECISEcomplaint Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence — protecting the agents of the king with mock trials.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
