Distribution
of wealth: neo-feudalism confirmed again
An extreme version of feudalism might mean
that the sovereign owns everything in his or her domain, particularly all the
land. This is still exemplified in the British system of land ownership, i.e.
freehold land is actually defined as a 999 year lease from the Crown. While in
modern Western economies land is still a key aspect of ownership, there is of
course an overlay of other instruments of wealth, e.g. control over production,
banking, media and natural resources.
However the reality of traditional feudalism
always meant that a small class of so-called aristocrats owned and controlled much
of the wealth generated by them and all the classes below them. Classes of
slaves and serfs were eventually replaced by the working classes, giving rise
to the modern wage economies.
Inequalities in wages are a popular topic
of discussion amongst the working classes: compare the minimum wage in Britain
with a $300,000 weekly wage for a top footballer and jaws drop. Obviously, if
the footballer is clever enough he will use his income to create personal wealth
but even in doing so he will fall far short of those who either inherit vast
wealth or create it from scratch by entrepreneurial endeavour, rising to
corporate elites, and in turn accumulate vast amounts of assets.
Data (2014) from the German Institute for
Economic Research (as quoted by Der Spiegel) confirms the status quo:
0,0001% of the German population in 2014
(which makes for about 45 of the richest families in Germany) own almost double
the wealth of the 50% of the poorest population.
That Germany is leading the race to the top
is further exemplified by comparisons to France and Spain, which have very
similar trends but not as pronounced as in Germany.
How can this happen?
The strange theory that some 90% of the
populations (owning only some 35% of the total wealth) are complicit in this
state of affairs is invariably supported by confused liberals who, while they
condemn this type of vulture capitalism, they blame the victims. This is sadly
illustrated by an article in the liberal Guardian about a Turkish liberal
author, Elif Shafak, who lists her favourite books, such as Naomi Kleins’ This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the
Climate, but also Eric Hoffer’s The
True Believer, which she believes explains crazy fundamentalists (like
Jihadists or people who voted for Trump) in these terms:
“The less
justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he
is to claim all excellence for his nation or his religion or his race or his
holy cause.”
It is easy to blame those who vote for
their insane masters or blame the women who get sexually assaulted by men or
blame the poor for being so useless. Eric Hoffer’s idea that personal
‘excellence’ defines an individual human being, and lacking it will turn him or
her into a mad fundamentalist, is of course a mad idea in itself.
It is much more useful to investigate how
the 10% or the 1% of the population can manipulate the 90 or 99% of the
population into submission. As I keep pointing out there are two seminal books
that Elif Shafak should read:
1.
Wilhelm Reich’s Mass Psychology of Fascism
2.
Chomsky & Herman’s Manufacturing Consent
Both volumes explain succinctly how it is
done.
Modern media, voter and market manipulation
is predicated on highly accurate statistical matching algorithms, allowing for
unprecedented forecasting and thereby resting assured that the outcomes will
favour the proprietors. All the while the 90 or 99% are living the dream that
is preprogrammed for them: you too can be an excellent person by worshipping
those few who are truly excellent.
Who would have thought that Germany is
again leading the race? That the current German elites (the 0.0001%) can claim
the high moral ground as capitalists with a human face - in view of various
kleptocracies that run most of the rest of the world - is very alarming indeed.
If the German model is the new ‘normal’ then we are truly lost in the quagmire
of neo-feudalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment