Modern Capitalist Feudalism

Any mechanic who suggests you buy a new car because your spark plug is broken is running a scam and definitely doesn’t have your best interest at heart. The same can be said for our modern markets. 

Say what you will about capitalism today - it has its issues big and small - but, it has also been the engine of incredible change and wealth generation for all classes of society. Naturally, nothing is perfect and talks about improvements occur, and should be encouraged.

However, anybody who suggests a full replacement of the system because of problems here and there definitely doesn’t know what they’re talking about, and probably have some ulterior motive, like a bad mechanic.

Any honest person hoping for a better world will admit there are problems with today’s markets beyond typical crony capitalism. But, the mistake comes in suggesting a complete replacement of the engine when all we might need is just a tune-up.

I consider myself an honest man, and the problem I see is that modern markets have evolved to become Capitalist Feudalism (a term I made up for this piece, thank you). And, if you’re familiar with how feudalism works, I hope you would agree.

You can't use the internet anywhere without bowing to Comcast.
You can't analyze data or have any presence online without paying homage to Google.
You can't have a social presence without submitting to Facebook.
You can't sell anything without dealing with Amazon.

And that's just for individuals. Imagine how much more hard it becomes to operate as a company.
The fact that companies, governments and people have to defer to these companies in order to conduct business, access sites using equipment that doesn't actually belong to them, and surrender their personal data and security in order to post pictures of their kids, does not sound like a free society to me.

And for companies, that’s not competition, it's feudalism.

Something needs to be done. If left unchecked, I foresee a world in which we wake up in our Amazon beds, eat our Google cereal, ride in our Facebook cars to our Amazon jobs and pay our Google taxes to pay for Comcast infrastructure.

Really though, the problem isn't really with the markets (naturally, these companies will want to grow and absorb others to maximize profits; it’s in their nature). But, it's with those who support the current status quo, or support the current form of the markets, because the only suggestion coming from the opposition is a complete engine replacement.

Let’s get on the same page, please?

Can we recognize that capitalism has created the greatest growth of wealth never before possible?
Can we recognize that there are problems inherent in the system?
Can we agree that recognizing those problems and wanting to address them means we do not want to buy a whole new car?
Can I argue that breaking them up would be a good thing for the world, without being called a socialist?

To quote Scott Galloway from L2inc, “We don’t break them up because they’re evil […] we don’t break them up because they avoid taxes […] we don’t break them up because they destroy jobs […] we break them up because we are capitalists.”

(This article appeared originally on thelatest.com)

Joseph Stalin made me a PB&J

If Joseph Stalin made me a sandwich, would I say thank you? Would I compliment him on his sandwich-making abilities if it were a good sandwich? If it were the best sandwich I'd ever had, would I throw it away and claim it wasn't?

Of course you can ask this question of any distasteful, mass-murdering, dirt-bag. I would have used Hitler, but that's a bit played out at this point, isn't it? Besides, old Joe Stalin killed more people, so the question should be more powerful.

I can tell you my answer: I don't know.

But that's the point. Especially about someone I don't know enough about to make any kind of judgement about how I would react in that situation: I haven't predetermined my reaction. I haven't automatically decided if I would throw it in his face, or ignore him. I admit maybe I should, and I probably would (If I know myself well enough). But I haven't made up my mind beforehand.

What if we were to walk the streets of San Francisco (or better yet Portland, Oregon) and ask the people on the streets if how'd they react if Donald Trump made them a sandwich. (You could have asked the same question about Obama to people in, say... Texas, but let's keep it in the present for now).

Can we predict with relative certainty how a majority of the participants would react? I would say so. (You're welcome to disagree).

The problem with today's world is that we're so set on choosing sides, making sure that our side is "right" that we are willing to disregard any good thing, any victory, that comes from the other side. People in every political party, in every walk of life, are susceptible to the mistake of prejudging the actions of others, and automatically assigning motive and morality to actions, good or bad.

I mention this because the (fingers crossed) impending peace with North Korea is definitely a good thing. I don't think there is a single honest person in the north or the south of that peninsula who doesn't want peace with each other. This is a good thing, no matter what others say about it.

Isn't that annoying? Am I the only one growing tired of the hecklers and the naysayers?

Don't get me wrong, there are things Trump has done that I don't like. But the fact that talking heads and pundits continue to make the issue about them, about him, about how it can't possibly be as good a thing as we believe because of who is behind it, proves that they're not in it for us, they're in it for themselves. It's not healthy for us as a nation.

Our democracy didn't fall apart, as promised, when Trump was elected.

Millions of people didn't die when we repealed the mandate for the Affordable Care Act.

Maybe I have a better view of him because I don't have Twitter? But it seems every other day there is a news story about something the president tweeted, and not about what he did. What if he didn't have Twitter? Would the country's perception of him and the things he does change?

Maybe we should remember that actions speak louder than words.

Portrayal is not Perpetuation

Depiction is not endorsement, acknowledgement is not approval, and reflections are not acceptance. I could go on, but hopefully the point is already clear. The fact that some people need this explained to them is a sad fact of today's society.

Let's pull up a recent, but not too sensitive topic to begin: Xmen Apocalypse.

In 2016, this movie started controversy before it ever entered theaters because of one billboard.
Apparently showing a scene from the movie in which the bad guy was acting…well…bad, is bad?
The complaint is that it was depicting, and therefore perpetuating violence against women. The fear was that young people will look up at the billboard and think, "Y'know, that looks like fun."

Sound like someone else you know?

It sounds like Christians on the far right complaining that gay characters on TV will make their children gay.

It sounds like far-left radicals attacking Dave Chappelle for transgender jokes because they think it incites anti-trans violence.

It doesn't take a genius to deduce that portraying something, and actively campaigning for it, are two completely different things.

It just takes a five-minute break to think about the situation. The problem isn't your political stance, it's a lack of good judgment and logical thinking. This applies to everyone, no matter your political or moral leanings.

To help illustrate the problem let me ask a question:

What if there was a blockbuster movie released this summer (maybe a Marvel movie?) in which the main antagonist was an incredibly evil, merciless, and mass-murdering warmonger and he/she also happened to be gay?

What would the response be?

Would those on the left lose their minds because Hollywood was trying to depict all gay people as evil?

Would those on the right still take up arms because it's just another example of Hollywood ramming their politically-correct agenda down our throats?

Or would most people realize that movies are just a snapshot of the culture at the time, and to be more believable they will include gay characters, because they also exist in real life. (And like it or not, there might just be good and bad homosexuals, just as there are good and bad heterosexuals).

To wrap this all up, here is the most recent example I could find:

This video review of Farcry 5 released this month. I personally love the Farcry series, and the fifth is no exception.

But it is mind-boggling that those in this video are so hung up on the fact that the game portrays an "Obama-hatin' conservative" as one of the good guys.

To these reviewers it is impossible that anyone right of them on the political spectrum could possibly be a good person, that he could possibly have any motivation for being conservative other than racism.

Does the game portray those from all walks of life? Yes. Does it make any comment on whether those views are right or wrong? No. Instead it accurately represents the people that actually exist today.

Those on the right think the same about those left of themselves.

We don't see each other as humans, as brothers and sisters anymore.

We're all rivals, all competitors.

And that's the problem.