[Paracelsus]

Cultural Capitalism would be a somewhat misleading term for this. The reason it's called Cultural Marxism is because Marxism was ultimately about full, complete state control of the economy, forcing people to a certain level of income. Most of the means by which cultural Marxism is spreading is via the same State controls: Supreme Court says you have to sell wedding cakes to gays no matter how Christian you are, in deeper-red jurisdictions like Australia or the UK you have Sex Discrimination and Equal Opportunity legislation which mandates not only that you must not discriminate, but which comes close to saying you must discriminate in favour of a protected class to make the contest "equal".

Cultural Capitalism as a concept would be as close as you get to there being a free market of ideas: the ones that people want and which are most efficient culturally succeed, the ones that don't fail by force of their own stupidity/creative destruction/demographic extinction etc. In the long term this is actually what already happens on the Earth: time is the great arbiter for which cultures survive and which die out.

That aside, I did want to pick up what Super_Fire said above: when we talk about capitalism now we are indeed talking about state-sponsored usury and predatory financial practices for the benefit of oligarchs. This phenomenon has happened before in history. It had been around for a good 150 years by 1776 when a guy by the name of Adam Smith first published The Wealth of Nations, and it was exactly what he was preaching against in that volume - not communism, not feudalism; the former was still a good century away and the latter had already died out. Smith's tract was first and foremost a polemic against mercantilism.

Again, TLP from 2008 in the ruins of the subprime crisis, and who's a lot more interesting than Wikipedia on the subject:

Quote:

Welcome to 1600.

The schizophrenization of America becomes revealed. Was America too laissez faire, which lead to the crisis? Or not enough, which lead to a bailout plan? The answer depends, in large part, on whether you think it's your money at stake.

Whether it is a good plan or a bad plan remains to be seen. Indeed, it will never be known since we will never really know what would have happened had the other course been taken. If Depression is indeed averted, no one will thank Paulson. Or, if Depression comes, whether it could have been averted by the plan. So be it.

But is it socialism?

No.


II. What is mercantilism?

In a sentence, it is the belief that a country's strength is tied to how much money it can accumulate. In the heyday of British mercantilism, 1600-1776, it meant the accumulation of bullion; favoring exports over imports; keeping money within the nation, not sending it elsewhere. The money could be used to purchase commodities and fund armies-- which, in turn, helped bring money into the country.

Mercantilism was premised on the belief that there is a fixed quantity of wealth in the world, and everyone has to fight over it. Economics, it was felt, is a zero sum game; and since not everyone can win, it becomes acceptable that they don't.

State policies reflected this. "Free trade" meant "free trade for me." Protectionist tariffs and regulations; international treaties that solidified trade superiority. Colonies to sell the exports to. And a tight control over the means of shipping.

Mercantilism also exerted influence not just on commerce but on thought and culture. In order to maximize exports, it had to convince the populace that the export (or approved import) was necessary. In the late 1600s, calicoes, previously the cloth of the poor, became a sought after fashion necessity-- entirely because it was what was being imported. It wasn't sought after and therefore imported; it was imported and therefore sought after. Cleverly, British merchants made high profile gifts of the calicoes to prominent ladies; the nobility accumulated them; and then everyone had to have them. They went into clothes, furniture, drapes. Mercantilism had changed the aesthetic of the the entire nation-- the world.

Generally unimportant products took on gigantic importance, because the market convinced people they were important. Here's an example: Columbus accidentally discovered America because he was looking for spices.

Capitalism identifies a market and then tries to maximize profit within it. Mercantilism, by contrast, creates markets on purpose based on what it has to offer, and then controls those markets.


III. The Sudden Decline of Feudalism

What preceded British mercantilism? Feudalism-- local, feudal power rather than a centralized government; vague territorial boundaries; and ever changing racial and cultural characteristics. It was local, and fluid. But as the world "shrunk" (or got flat) it could not adequately provide for its people. Unemployment and poverty rose. Meanwhile, the opening of trade and improvement in travel offered greater opportunities than farming someone else's land.

States formed, over time, and absorbed the fiefdoms, removed the existing lords, consolidated the power, and served the interests of its domestic merchants and producers.

And so the rise of the nation-state; racially homogeneous, with rigid territorial boundaries; partly feudal but with a new quasi-class system of nobility, merchants, workers, and slaves.


IV. Wither American Feudalism?

As I have written before here and here, for some time in modern America, feudalism was the growing trend; but rather than lord-vassal, it was company-employee. Government's role was secondary and shrinking; companies provided income, healthcare and retirement benefits, and, more importantly, a sense of identity and belonging. The company provided protection in exchange for service.

Even two years ago, this was increasing. These company-lords become even more powerful as they merged and privatized, going off the public exchanges but still wielding massive influence.

But for this progression was suddenly diverted. Now, instead of companies going private, they are going government.

Who has the big money now? Sovereign wealth funds, of which, if/when the Paulson Plan is passed-- for it is inevitable, in some form-- the U.S. will become. In the past, there was a tug of war between private ownership and state ownership. Now, instead of outright nationalization of a program (e.g. Social Security) governments own financial stakes in businesses, in sectors-- and in themost important sector of all, the financial sector. The Chinese have this system firmly in place, but pretend it is "communism." Saudis as well. And now, soon, the U.S.

How does the U.S. government separate its foreign policy with its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, which is you? How does it separate its domestic policy from a revenue motive? It can't. They become one and the same.

If the complaint in the past was that government is too influenced by big business, how does this change when government is Big Business?

Put all this together with a growing protectionist sentiment, and you have our new economic model: mercantilism.

America can't move closer to socialism, if for no other reason than those in power are too young to remember what it really looks like and how to execute it; and with so much individual narcissism, no one could demote themselves so much to the state.

Such policies like the Paulson Plan appear socialist because the government seems highly involved in the control, in the regulation of an industry. But this is exclusively in the service of the business franchises that it controls. The analogy for todays events isn't The USSR or even France; it's the East India Trading Company; an independent, for profit, business arm of the state. It was nearly a monopoly. It could even command the military, as needed [1].



Within the East India Trading Company's flag was the union Jack-- Britain's flag-- contained in the canton. Get it? Britain at the service of the Company; the Company for the benefit of Britain.

[1] though in this case rather than the Company lending money to the Treasury for exclusive trading rights, the Treasury lends it to the Company for a cut of the profits and taxes-- which is in turn in exchange for protection.

The resemblance between the US flag and the East India Trading Company is not coincidental: Ben Franklin himself recommended the Company flag as a model to build the US flag upon. That the US has basically turned into the East India Trading Company is a point of irony, not cause and effect.

Adam Smith's book was a direct reaction to this: it's why TWoN talks so much about limited government, enlightened self-interest, and comparative advantage: because the dominant forces in economics at the time were desperate to accumulate money within their countries beyond all sense. Smith's most classic illustration of how crazy the idea was is made no better than in his observation that Scots were madmen to try and produce wine. The heating costs made it 30 times more expensive, it is far cheaper and "better" if you outsource the making of the wine itself to a warm country and do trade with it.

The problem is that Smith's message has been slowly modified and twisted such that we are right back where we started 200 years ago: nations rate themselves by the wealth they hold within themselves or directly command, not by the strength of their trade relationships. NAFTA, PPT -- these are manifestations of mercantilism, they create trading blocs of favoured trading partners, which are effectively economic colonies of the strongest member in that partnership. And just like the mercantilism of old, it cannot stand. When it falls, a new capitalism will arise, and what will later be seen as the Second Great Industrial Revolution ... not that the poor bastards living through it and displaced by it will profit much off it.