In the first three parts to this series (part one, two, three) we looked in depth at the social conditions from which The Communist Manifesto was conceived. I began by showing how key economic tenets of the manifesto – specifically those relating to central banking and taxation – have either been met or are in a process of development in today’s world. We then progressed to detailing the contents of early drafts of the manifesto before focusing on the completed edition itself.
To conclude, I will now begin offering my own thoughts on the research I have undertaken.
As we know, the premise of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ vision for a communist State was built on the understanding that capitalism was the leading cause of inequality and oppression in society, and on publication of their manifesto was the exclusive preserve of the bourgeoisie class. The bourgeoisie possessed all rights to production, whilst the proletariat had no such means and as a result had to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie in order to secure a basic standard of living.
The battle lines were therefore drawn between the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and a proletariat revolution (communism).
In a fully fledged communist society, as Marx and Engels envisaged, all rights to private property would be curtailed and the means of production put under the ownership of the State. Communism would also bring with it the centralisation of credit, progressive taxation, abolition of all rights to inheritance, the centralisation of communication and, amongst others, confiscation of property from anyone rebelling against the State.
We will start by looking at the subject of capitalism, and refer immediately to plank number five of the manifesto which reads:
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
As I detailed in part one, nearly all countries in the world are now presided over by a central bank. But the key word I want to pick up on from this command is ‘monopoly’. The authors were of the perspective that under the bourgeoisie capitalism held the exclusive monopoly in society. The challenge was for the communists to change the dynamic so that capitalist hegemony would fall to the overriding dominance of the State.
That was in 1848, the year the manifesto was first published. If we move the debate on to 2017, how does Marx and Engels’ argument that capitalism is the cause of society’s ills measure up?
Today we have various different sectors where large businesses reign supreme. Anywhere from the pharmaceutical industry, to oil, to banks, to supermarkets and to the media. In August last year I published a post about the monopolisation of jet engine manufacturers in the aviation industry, pointing out that this particular market as well as others are cornered by just a handful of companies. The same can be said for all the other industries I just outlined.
Debate within the mainstream often reduces such dominance to that of ‘crony capitalism‘, where vast organisations acquire billions in capital whilst a majority below struggle to pay bills and sustain themselves. I have no doubt that this is true. The problem comes in how people define capitalism. Both sides of what is a false political paradigm take opposing views – the left blame capitalism for creating grotesque inequality, whilst the right praise the endeavours of the ‘free market‘ and the enterprising spirit of entrepreneurship. I believe both are wrong in their interpretation.
In its most basic form, capitalism is the the trading of goods and services. For example, say if I bought some wood from a local manufacturer and decided to make a selection of five children’s toys. I then advertise them for sale in a local newspaper. I did not produce the toys on behalf of a company. I simply created them in the hope that they would sell and I would make a profit from my endeavour. I end up selling each toy for £10, making £50 in total. This is pure, unfettered capitalism. I have earned the money out of many hours producing the goods.
Under the terms of The Communist Manifesto, this method of earning capital would not be acceptable. Producing a series of items that allowed me to earn further money beyond my State salary would be in breach of the “new social order“, because additional income for one’s self would not be to the benefit of society as a whole. By Marx and Engels’ definition, this would make me a “rebel”. My goods would therefore have to be confiscated, for the reason being that I attempted to capitalise and make some extra money. I would be, in other words, a capitalist. The very thing Communists are said to oppose.
But this is not your typical everyday example of how capitalism is defined. Today, the high rise city headquarters of banks, or the giant swathes of retail parks, are pointed at as being the face of capitalism. We watch footage of traders in the New York Stock Exchange hollering as share prices increase, lamenting their avarice as we throw stones at the bankers who we blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. It was their ‘greed‘ that got us into this mess we say. We call it the unacceptable face of capitalism.
This is a misconception of the term, however. It is not capitalism per se that is the problem. Rather, it is the monopolisation of industry where the real problem resides. A monopolisation called corporatism. Here is why:
As far back as 1600 – 248 years before The Communist Manifesto was published – the East India Company was born. This company, as explained on Wikipedia,
originally chartered as the “Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies”. The company rose to account for half of the world’s trade, particularly in basic commodities including cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, saltpetre, tea and opium. The company also ruled the beginnings of the British Empire in India.
What gave this company licence to trade was a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I, who was the head of State. In the UK it used to be common place that the government created corporations under a Royal Charter or an act of parliament whilst granting the right of a monopoly over a specified territory.
Today, corporations are registered with the State, and are regulated by laws enacted by the government. Public Limited Companies (PLC’s) in the UK must register with Companies House, which is an executive agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
PLC’s routinely make up the ream of companies on the stock exchange – the same stock exchange that is misconstrued as a base for free market capitalism.
Many at this point will argue that the reason ‘capitalism‘ is out of control is because countries with large state-owned corporations were sold off by governments and privatised for personal financial gain. Take the Royal Mail as an example, which was fully privatised in 2015 having been under State control since its inception in 1516. I would retort that this is not an example of capitalism, but is instead the very definition of monopoly corporatism. The Royal Mail has no rival when it comes to posting a letter at a letter box. It therefore has a monopoly, and cannot be defined as a product of the free market. The Royal Mail is also a leader in parcel deliveries, and forms a monopoly in this sector with the likes of DHL, DPD, TNT and Parcel Force.
Remember also that The Royal Mail cannot function without being registered with the State. Take their government statute away and they would cease trading. Effectively what you have today is a state sponsored monopoly called corporatism, which private companies conceal themselves behind.
We see the same eventuality with electric, gas, water, telecommunications and transport. In each of these sectors you have a limited amount of companies who all solicit for your business. However, board a train from London to Glasgow and that train will be exclusively operated by Virgin. You as the passenger will not have the option of choosing between multiple companies. This, then, is not capitalism. It is monopoly corporatism.
In essence, if capitalism in its broadest sense was the dominant ideology in society, it would be unable to possess a monopoly within a free market structure. The very idea of a free market was blown asunder after 2008 when PLC’s such as The Royal Bank of Scotland were saved from certain ruin through State sponsored aid issued by the government chartered Bank of England. All under the pretext that had they not been then the entire financial system would have imploded. This is about as far removed from capitalism as you are ever likely to get.
Tracking the progress of corporate growth reveals some interesting facts, especially since many acts designed to reinforce corporatism originated after The Communist Manifesto was conceived. In 1896 for example, New Jersey adopted an enabling corporate law with the goal of trying to attract a greater share of business. Then in 1899 Delaware was the location for the enactment of an enabling corporate statute. From the early 19th century, State governments began adopting what were more permissive corporate laws, but not to the extent of allowing corporations to gain too much wealth or power.
Until the late 19th century in the US, forming a corporation often required an act of legislation. This period also welcomed the beginning of corporate mergers, a common place feature in society today. In March 2017 the oil services company John Wood Group agreed to a £5 billion merger with Amec Foster Wheeler. Mergers are an accepted sign of progress within the economy, in spite of the fact that they reduce competition.
Post World War One saw the development of corporate conglomerates, the motivation being to promote economic growth. Conglomerates are now spread across the globe, not least in the entertainment industry. Take Sony as an example, who count RCA Records and Columbia amongst dozens of their subsidiaries.
Subsidiaries are one way in which the appearance of corporate growth is suppressed in the mainstream. On first glance you may think a plethora of record labels signifies an abundance of competition. But it cannot be classified as such if they fall under the umbrella of a single corporate entity. One of Marx and Engels’ chief aims was to eliminate competition within society and centralise industry. This is certainly the case in regards to many facets of the corporate world today.
It was in the 20th century that desire amongst State governments to drive global economic growth became profound. Newly devised laws allowed for the creation of corporations by registration across the world. Hence Companies House in the UK. Forming a corporation became a lot less arduous.
An intriguing question to raise at this point is to ask whether subsequent changes in corporate law, and the allowance for corporations to control markets by monopoly, was an intention of Marx and Engels’. We know that they wanted the centralisation of credit to be run through a national bank with an ‘exclusive monopoly’. On one hand we could say they meant a State that was completely detached from corporatism / capitalism. On the other hand we could say that because they championed complete jurisdiction of power to the State, this would technically enable the State to act as the birthplace for modern day corporations. Did Marx and Engels’ believe that the State could ever have too much power? Would they have sanctioned the growth of corporatism under the premise that every company had to be registered with the State? Would they have approved of the corporate monopolism of today, or chastised the State for allowing it to happen?
In this sense, has communism, as with many other ideologies in existence (including capitalism), been subverted?
One has to assume that the authors were aware of the history of corporatism at the time of writing The Communist Manifesto, particularly the conception of the East India Company in 1600.
Whatever the case may be, the mergence of State and corporate power cannot be denied. The State has fostered the growth of corporatism. Rather perversely, what we have and continue to witness is the growth of Corporate Socialism. The conditions for this are straight forward – the State charters corporations into existence, those same corporations then metastasize and end up monopolising the market place, resulting in the elimination of competition. As I have documented throughout this series, a prerequisite of Marx and Engels’ communism was the abolition of competition, because they interpreted this as a quality of capitalism.
They believed that the State should be absolute, and that people should be subservient to it. But does it not stand to reason that if you empower an entity to this degree then it becomes self empowering, in that they are given licence to sign off on corporate monopolies under their own indomitable jurisdiction?
If we realise this to be an accurate representation of the present moment, then the relevance of the 19th century bourgeoisie that Marx and Engels’ were in staunch opposition to remains highly significant. The bourgeoisie fell under the stratum of the then middle class. In the 21st century, the most populated class in society is widely recognised as being the middle class. But the dynamic has changed substantially.
The middle class of today do not possess anything like the same wealth or power that the bourgeoisie would have done. They may form a majority and comprise the bulk of the electorate and the work place, but they have next to no prospect of advancing beyond this level. Consider for a moment just how many people worldwide are thought of in this vain. It will surely stretch into the high hundreds of millions or more. Consider also that the wealth of the middle class does not grow through hard assets that they own outright. Wages of working men and women – in sectors such as retail and social care – have been stagnating for years. The only growth within the middle class originates under a false pretext of paper wealth called credit. Debt has become an ideology in itself.
This is why I reason that intiatives such as the UK living wage are to a large degree a vehicle to pacify the population. For years people have slowly grown accustomed to the realisation that their purchasing power will remain limited. They have become used to the conditions following the financial crisis of 2008.
Earlier this month The Evening Standard in the UK ran a story about how millions of working people face 15 years of stagnating wages. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
On current forecasts average earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007. Fifteen years without a pay rise. This is completely unprecedented.
Living standards are set to grow very slowly over the next three to four years after six years of almost no improvement.
The introduction of a living wage, which supplanted the minimum wage, remains a lock in for millions of people. It is a tool to keep workers within tight confines. Yes, it pays more to you and I at the end of the month. But what it also does is reinforce wage parity amongst the work force. The living wage in the UK for over 25’s is about to increase to £7.50 an hour. It will reach £9.20 by 2020. The State understands that this is by no means enough for the people entrapped by it to sustain a comfortable living, particularly with rising inflation levels. As such, an ever increasing number of people in the UK rely on food banks and in work benefits to keep themselves and their children fed. Yet rampant capitalism is again identified as the culprit.
In the US, official figures show that 42.5 million people are on food stamps, which is almost exactly in line with the total of 42.6 million said to be living in poverty. 163 million are receiving a benefit of some description. That’s one in two out of 324 million. These figures demonstrate just how much control the State has over the individual, and how reliant on the State millions of citizens have become.
Swathes of people who fall within the living wage will work for corporations, myself included. A primary concern of a corporate is their profit margins. They will recognise that it will become cheaper to employ people under 25 years of age, given that those who quality are paid as much as £4 less in some cases. Corporations are not at risk from the living wage. They will continue to assimilate their ‘rivals‘, further nullifying competition. But they could quite easily take on less workers as a result of it, which will have the added consequence of entrapping people further into unemployment and placing them under the direct hand of the State.
But perhaps the biggest problem here is the effect it will have on local and independent businesses. Think of the nearby newsagents or bridal shop that struggle for custom at the current rates of pay. Should the living wage prove too burdensome then it follows that we will see an escalation of small businesses going to the wall. And the result of this? The reinforcement of the corporate model, the dying ember of independent business, and the further erosion of competition.
With the living wage, what we have are people that are paid to a level which they begrudgingly accept as their lot, and have no option other than to carry on with the day to day task of living. A sobering consequence of this is the inability of people being able to afford to live independent of their family home. A home that may be occupied by the last generation that has hard assets to their name. But they themselves will steadily begin to see these assets erode as parents support their sons and daughters onto the housing ladder. In other words, the majority of low paid employees no longer have sufficient means to own private property. They rent rather than buy, and borrow out of necessity. The living wage will do nothing to change this. What it will do is entrench people more into a lifestyle reliant on cheap labour fortified by credit, all under the watchful eye of the State.
This is what I meant by accepting your present conditions. They become an inevitability. And one might venture to suggest, ‘the social order of now’. The psychology behind this gradual phenomenon should not be underestimated.
I would therefore contend that the middle class of today is in fact a mutation of the proletariat class, who are presided over by a globalist elite which comprises institutions such as the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.
This would mean that the bourgeoisie of the 19th century have mutated also, to become the globalist elites of today. By this logic, the bourgeoisie revolutionised into globalist players, and could only have achieved this ambition by revolutionising beyond their previous demeanor. It was Marx and Engels’ who declared that a successful revolution could never be reactionary in nature. It had to be forward looking. It had to advance. Not retreat into nostalgia or a wish for times gone by.
And the uncomfortable fact remains that it is the State who has authorised this globalist revolution, as they are the ones who have granted the rights of corporations to flourish and thus monopolise the industries around us. The pandemic of corporate lobbyists inside the government apparatus ensures the State works to the benefit of corporations rather than to their detriment.
For this reason, I suggest that capitalism is no more than a subverted ideology which legions of people have been encouraged to attach the world’s ills to. Those who rise up in protest at capitalism are barking at not just the wrong enemy, but a contrived enemy. We beat capitalism with a big stick whilst in the same breath reduce the debate surrounding corporate finance to the self serving greed of overzealous bankers.
A true capitalist society breeds choice, and corporations could simply not exist in such a society. Taking away their government statutes and charters removes their power, and a free market built upon independent business and not corporate monopoly would give rise to the one thing that Marx and Engels’ decried. Competition.
I do not come to this perspective out of ignorance of what would happen if corporate charters were revoked tomorrow. A concerted rise against corporatism from a public level would, for a time, likely result in a severe depletion in living standards. But you cannot realistically hope to change both the face and fabric of a society without enduring pain and hardship. If people are unwilling to risk what are already meagre living standards at best, and are not prepared to substitute materialism for liberty, then the conditions in which they live now will grow progressively worse as the thirst for centralising power continues unabated. At the expense of you and I.
The chief argument amongst mainstream economists would point to the destruction of the world’s economy should corporations be unable to function. An economy without corporatism (or as they call it, capitalism) would render society destitute in their eyes. However, I argue that the corporatised landscape in which we live in today will, in the long term, prove not to be unsustainable.
For example, few people appear to realise the true extent of how currency is brought into existence. It is no exaggeration to say that the bulk of money in society today was created as debt. In 2013, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a ‘fedpoint‘ which confirmed that, at the time, there was approximately $1.2 trillion in circulation via banknotes and coins. Yet the current US National Debt (excluding unfunded liabilities) currently stands at just under $20 trillion. The disconnect is made more obvious when you observe money from a wider context. In 2015, The Money Project published a visualisation showing the dominations in which money exists in the modern era. They measured the total amount of coins and bank notes in the world to be worth around $5 trillion, whereas all stock markets combined are worth some $70 trillion. Exceeding this however is the total amount of global debt. The Money Project estimates this figure at $200 trillion.
But by far the biggest financial liability in the world today rests with derivatives. These are a contract between two or more parties that derive their value from the performance of an underlying asset, such as a commodity, currency or interest rate. Banks use a high degree of leverage to attain these positions in the market. Derivatives include two key vehicles for the accumulation of debt – Collateralised Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps. Both gained press exposure during the financial crisis in 2008. The Money Project’s low end estimate for the value of derivatives world wide stands at $630 trillion. Their high end estimate, though, takes us into new territory. Accounting for all derivative contracts, they project the figure to be over a quadrillion dollars.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett is on the record as saying that derivatives are ‘a financial weapon of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.‘
What we as individuals have to come to terms with here is that the State is not funded through actual wealth or assets. It is funded through the creation of money (debt), which banks loan out to governments whilst charging them a rate of interest. They make a portion of their capital through interest payments, despite the fact that creating money costs the banks nothing. I appreciate it may sound far fetched, but the process is as simple as entering digits on a screen. It arises from thin air, akin to a conjuring trick. Whereas money used to be pegged to the amount of gold through the gold standard, now it is not measured against any asset. Instead it exists under the pretext of the recipients promise to pay. So the existence of money is mostly dependent on bank credit.
Here is Senior Economist at the Bank of England, Ryland Thomas, confirming as such:
The two key points here are:
- Banks create additional broad money whenever they create a loan
- Loans create deposits
In essence this means that when you pay money into a bank, that money becomes the property of the bank. What you have done is loan them your capital, which is primarily why you receive interest on the money (which amounts to barely anything given that interest rates have been at near 0% for approaching a decade). This duplicity is part of a system called Fractional Reserve Banking, which I talked about in part one of this series.
Banks operate to what is known as a required reserve ratio, meaning that they are obligated to hold a certain amount of capital on their books at all times. As explained by Study.com:
A required reserve ratio is the fraction of deposits that regulators require a bank to hold in reserves and not loan out. If the required reserve ratio is 1 to 10, that means that a bank must hold $0.10 of each dollar it has in deposit in reserves, but can loan out $0.90 of each dollar. The required reserve ratio is set by the Federal Reserve.
For instance, if a bank had a reserve ratio of 10% and deposits totaling £1 billion, this would give them the power to create an extra £900 million on top of these deposits. £100 million would remain in the banks reserves and be used for daily withdrawals, but the £900 million that was created as debt is used to primarily fund new customer loans. So customer deposits and debt combined, the bank would then have in this scenario £1.9 billion, and would have almost doubled the money supply purely through debt creation. The £900 million they created eventually works its way through the system and becomes the basis for issuing more debt. As customers deposit the £900 million that was conjured out of nothing, this same money again becomes subject to the reserve ratio of 10% – meaning that the bank could loan out 90% of £900 million whist keeping the remaining 10% in their reserve for withdrawals. This is how the money supply grows, by creating new money as debt.
This explains how the amount in bank liabilities far exceeds the amount of broad money actually in circulation, and confirms also that debits far outweigh total assets in the economy. In short, debt is money. And growth in today’s economy is measured not through tangible wealth but through debt issuance that funds the purchase of goods and services. It is what system serving economists call a sustainable business model. Many also have the temerity to call it capitalism.
In keeping with the issue of sustainability, let’s now briefly examine the subject of unfunded liabilities which I alluded to earlier, starting with the United States. Whist the US national debt prepares to exceed $20 trillion, unfunded liabilities of the State (which include social security, Medicare and veterans benefits) stand at an enormous $105.3 trillion.
The UK is no better. Here, we are conditioned to accept the headline figure for national debt, which at this moment is £1.8 trillion. However, the Tax Payers’ Alliance dispute this number because it does not include unfunded liabilities and also excludes bank bailouts. Counting public and State pensions, as well as private finance initiatives (PFI’s), the liabilities come to £8.6 trillion. £4.4 trillion of this, according to the Tax Payers’ Alliance, is through unfunded State pensions.
An unfunded liability is one that does not have any savings set aside for it. It is a future financial commitment that has yet to be paid. The US total amounts to $879,000 per tax payer. Meanwhile, the amount of money the US government is collecting in taxes is currently at $3.3 trillion. Yet total federal, State and local spending tops $6.7 trillion.
The illusion of how money is created is reinforced by the tax system. Given that banks can print money or enter as many zeros on a screen as required, taxing the population should not be necessary. It is the widely held belief that taxes fund all public services. This belief serves only to maintain the illusion. Stripped of this illusion, taxation can be construed as a form of legalised theft. It is debt which predominately funds public services, by more than double the tax revenues in the United States alone.
Beyond the tax system, the Federal Reserve central bank has assets in the form of government bonds totaling $4.5 trillion on its books. In January 2008, prior to beginning their current bond purchasing programme, the balance sheet total was under a trillion dollars. The money from the Fed’s quantitative easing (QE) programme went directly on recapitalising the banks, and had attached to it no set conditions on how it should be used. This is not the hallmark of capitalism but rather State socialism. The State is culpable because the Federal Reserve was chartered into existence in 1913 by the US Senate.
The Fed’s QE program is undertaken via this mechanism:
- The Fed goes to a specfic bank e.g. JP Morgan
- They buy a set amount of mixed durations government bonds that the bank holds
- The Bank hands the bonds over to the Fed
- The bonds are then transferred over to the Fed’s balance sheet
- The Fed then transfer electronically new money to the bank that the bonds were purchased from – this money is created out of thin air at no cost to the Fed
- The banks now have new money on their balance sheets
- The accepted mainstream theory is that banks now have capital to lend to customers, in an effort to stimulate the economy
What is not being reported on the ten o’clock news, however, is that the same banks that received State aid are now using debt to fund the purchase of their own stock. This is known as ‘stock buybacks‘. The low interest rate environment has seen a rise in overnight loans between banks, which according to Reuters in 2015:
The Federal Reserve’s decision to delay raising interest rates for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis will likely encourage companies to take out more debt to repurchase their own shares or issue special dividends before the end of the year, adding to the almost $1 trillion that companies were already on pace to return to investors this year, fund managers and analysts say.
This is the reason why the Dow Jones Industrial Average sits at record levels. Companies are buying back their own stock through the creation of debt. A rise in interest rates over a sustained period will expose this practice for the fraud that it is, but as a consequence will result in the downturn of the global economy. The people hurt most by this will be an unsuspecting public who either did not see it coming or refused to believe it as an inevitability. It will not be those who have profited billions out of corporatism.
There can be no doubt that the model of corporatism has given rise to the wealthiest businessmen on the planet. Take Bill Gates of Microsoft, worth over $80 billion. Jeff Bezos of Amazon, over $70 billion. Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway, over $75 billion. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, over $55 billion. Encompassing these names are large chunks of the technology, retail and social media industry. They are the frontmen of a market monopoly, yet the media identifies them to their readership as capitalists rather than corporatists.
The myopic lens in which society wrongfully interprets capitalist growth is what provides corporatism the sustenance for its exponential rise. Realising that economic growth is actually the result of debt creation should be the central issue of our times.
Put simply, in a free market capitalist society, a failing business would be permitted to fail. But because of globalisation, and the corporate monopoly that underpins it, the inter-connectivity of one country to the next means that one failure leads to another failure, and soon to a widespread contagion. Which is why I suggest that monopoly capitalism is a myth, seen as how capitalism can only truly exist in a free market that encourages open competition. A free market would hold thousands of localised bank branches throughout the world. In a localised system where communities possess control over their own affairs, a outbreak of economic turbulence in one area is far less likely to contaminate fellow localised economies, thus reducing the prospect of a global epidemic.
A monopolised market is the opposite, seen as it holds just a handful of corporatised banks which have on their books untold trillions in debt liabilities. Allow one of these to fail and it would take down with it the whole financial system in one stroke.
Is this the centralisation of credit and the exclusive monopoly that Marx and Engels’ were promoting? What we know for sure is how the behaviour of the banking sector – and the central banks themselves for that matter – is only made possible by the State chartering them into existence. That much is undeniable. And if we are to define this as a corporate monopoly, and not, as is widely believed, as capitalism, it brings into question the true nature of the ideology that underscores our lives today.
I have heard it said many times over the years that the State has relinquished power to capitalism and has become subservient to its whims. I believe here I have outlined the reasons for why the total opposite is true. The State and Corporatism work hand in hand. The State cannot therefore abdicate responsibility simply by thrusting corporations into the position of outright power in society, not when it is the State that gives them the air to breathe. Corporations are considered exclusive to the private sector, but I would put forward that what they really amount to are agents of the State. They work alongside governments to implement a long standing agenda of centralising power and consolidating choice.
My research points clearly to the probable cause of this, which is that the State empowers corporate monopolies, and thus grants the necessary permission for Corporatism to set up shop in society and subjugate the world’s market place. In coming to this realisation, I began to understand that the most important factor is that no matter which side of the false political paradigm is elected into power, the State/Corporate dynamic reigns supreme. ‘Right’ and ‘Left‘ are simply the vehicles through which the constant of corporatism runs through.
Author and researcher Antony Sutton explained in his book, America’s Secret Establishment, over 30 years ago:
Discussion between left and right, while essential to promote change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of the Jeffersonian democracy, i.e. the best government is the least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn’t matter whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious – so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.
If we understand the thesis of The Communist Manifesto to be communism, and the antithesis capitalism, then economically speaking it has developed into a global synthesis of corporatism. A reality that would not have been possible without the mergence of the State and the private sector (perceived capitalism) in which corporatism masquerades behind.
In the final installment of part five I will be looking at the subject of reactionism in relation to Brexit and Donald Trump, the centralisation of modern day communication channels, and the differing variations of communist ideology.