I wrote yesterday on the rise of neo-feudalism. A long time, and much appreciated commentator on this blog is Andrew Dickie. He commented on my post as follows and I thought it worth sharing more widely, with his permission:
Richard — thanks for this, something I too have made reference to more than once. However, I think there's a need for greater specificity here, even though what you cite as the features or neo-feudalism are entirely correct.
What I mean by specificity is this: original feudalism was a system of wealth creation based entirely on land, in which your status, and wealth-producing capacity, depended on your relationship to land — it is not surprising that we still refer to “real estate”, where real originally meant it was a “res”, the Latin for a chattel or asset, but which soon came to have the meaning we normally give that word — that of “real” as opposed to “unreal”.
Now, all land ultimately belonged to the Crown, who leased it out to their tenants-in-chief, the great feudal barons, who then sub-let the land, and so on, right down to the landless serfs, with equivalent gradations of power and freedom all the way down that ladder of power.
Crucially, however, the system was at least directed at the production of real wealth, in the form of real goods, and most importantly of food, and did also involve some element of reciprocity, in that your Lord owed you a duty of protection in return for your allegiance. This may have been more honoured in the breach than in the observance the further down the social ladder you went, but there was some substance to the theory of protection in return for service.
Neo-feudalism, by contrast is based on two income streams: that from the creation of money through financial card-sharping, and, more recently, by the leech-like battening of these financial card-sharps onto revenue stream from general taxation.
It is important to note that two key elements of neo-feudal system are in direct opposition to its feudal original: first, neo-feudalism has nothing to do with the real economy, but only with the shadow economy of cartels, and price-fixing, and and tax havens/secrecy jurisdictions and Ponzi-inspired scams, and now with draining off real wealth from its intended beneficiaries. It could, therefore, be said that neo-feudalism is a sort of economic Onanism!
Secondly, the whole idea of mutuality and reciprocity, of protection in return for service, has been abandoned, and transformed into a naked power relationship of duty and obligation owed by the 99% to the neo-feudal 1%, who are to possess all the rights. All the duties on one side, all the rights on the other!
Our one real hope of confronting this situation is to adapt the mechanisms that destroyed feudalism, which was the rise of industry and trade in goods — not mercantilism, for that was a specific approach to money, but mercantile activity. The production of wealth and goods through trade eventually superseded (though did not, of course, abolish completely, far from it) the power of wealth derived from land.
Our modern equivalent of this has got to be the social interchange of goods and services via mutual arrangement and co-operation — LETS, TimeBanks, local money, Credit Unions, mutually-run banks and housing associations etc. (I'm sure fellow posters on this site can think of numerous other examples)- all to do with exchange that bypasses the 1%, and builds up social, and eventually political, networks of mutual reliance and obligation, until we can both a) capture the centres of power in society and politics and b) leave the 1% to their isolated misery in their plush, but marooned, gated estates.
I fear that even our children will not see this happen, for it is a generation-long plan, but we can be sure that if the Tories win in 2015, and the Tea-Publicans win the Presidency in 2016, then the poisonous Thatcher-Reagan hegemony will be locked in for another generation, and perhaps for ever, for all effective purposes, leaving us with a future of only “The Blade Runner” and “Soylent Green”
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
neo-feudalism is a sort of economic Onanism
…practised by merchant w*nkers?? (Sorry, crude but I couldn’t let it pass – feel free to delete if inappropriate)
So we need to do stuff like this then http://bristolpound.org/blog/2013/04/26/the-miracle-of-worgl/. ASAP too, if I’m not mistaken.
I am puzzling over comments about doing away with common law. Surely this is the basis for the social contract which enables civilization to exist. It follows that the feudal system would have been governed by ‘common’ law with its prescribed rightd, duties, and responsibilities. I am trying to work out what goes down the pan if this is ‘abolished. Surely the basis of ‘rights’ claimed by our 1% class will not then exist. In my mind ‘there goes the whole ball game’. Any comments on this topic would be gratefully received.
We seem to have a parallel ‘legal’ system, one for the neo-lib barons and associates and one for the rest of us. JP morgan can commit fraud and destroy the lives of communities yet negotiate its fine. A benefit claimant doing a bit of cash in hand because the 71.50 can’t buy him/her a pair of shoes is vilified and humiliated.
people feel so embedded in this system that they are fearful of changing it. Apparently the last local currency to disappear was in the 1920’s -bristol has resurrected this idea and some shops in bristol accept this money -if this started to happen on a big scale their would be a clamp-down-the neo-libs are happy to see it as a quaint bit of localism. I’m afraid that deposing the oligarchs and their financialised universe will not happen soon and will be messy.
Common Law? Tricky stuff – volatile, often contradictory, lacking definition, not always logical. Just like people. Consider this:
Ownership comprises the right to possess, the right to use, the right to manage, the right to the income of the thing, the right to the capital, the right to security, the rights or incidents of transmissibility and absence of term, the prohibition of harmful use, liability to execution, and the incident of residuarity. A. Honoré Making Law Bind 1987 Clarendon Press, Oxford
Some of these legal rights can conflict with each other for instance in disputes between Landlords and Tenants. Where no statute exists in this country a judge can resolve disputes by reference to common law. It is not perfect but it is an attempt to bring harmony between competing concepts to be found in the way life is actually lived. Things like fairness and compassion are examples that such a system serves. It forms a central support for the operation of democracy as practised in this country. Which may be why certain forces would not be unhappy with its demise, replacing it with contract law and democracy with demoktesis.
I think if we wait for alternative currencies to bring down the 1%, we’ll be waiting for a long time. Feudalism began to collapse when the Black Death created a labour shortage. Peasants could demand to be paid or go elsewhere. That was illegal but few landowners were in a position to refuse able workers. The Peasants’ revolt broke out when the Government tried to re-impose the old arrangements. The followers of Wat Tyler were -initially-well disciplined. They also had the new weapon, the English longbow which could kill a knight in armour at 60 paces. With the death of Wat Tyler, they were metaphorically decapitated -leaderless-and were fobbed off by the King (14 years old) promising “I will be your leader now”, but as soon as they were home, all promises were broken. Nevertheless, the aristocracy gradually gave them what they wanted. They would not be able to fob them off a second time.
We don’t have a labour shortage due to outsourcing, automation and more women in the workforce. However, on the other hand we have alternative sources of information and communication, the net, mobile phones etc which could be our longbow. The 1% would not able to resist the 99% or even a much smaller percentage who simply refuse to accept their rules. Unlike then we have a political structure which could deliver change. On the comment columns we keep reading how all politicians are corrupt-which I think helps the neo-liberal cause for if they are not trusted then the corporations can push their agenda. We should not reject politics but we need a coherent programme and courageous leaders to gain support for it. Despite what you may say the ‘catchiness’ of the title of Richard’s book, it does get to the heart of the matter.
I suspect the 1% are on the verge of bringing themselves down by destroying the value of money, hence their rush to get out of it and into housing and art, asset classes. That’s why I’ve been saying for ages we need an alternative currency to tide us over till a mainstream one arises again. It may be, of course, that a new system arises where there are lots of local social currencies as the new norm. Whatever, if we’re being starved of currency now and facing the possibility of being cut off entirely, we certainly need an in-place alternative. We need local farming to, enough to cover the needs of local populations.
“On the comment columns we keep reading how all politicians are corrupt-which I think helps the neo-liberal cause for if they are not trusted then the corporations can push their agenda”
I know this has been oft said but I think it is really significant. There is a need to challenge this view head-on – which is, of course what people like Richard do.
The requirement for a ‘common-law’ exists, I think, only where the aspiration of a state is for a fair and egalitarian democracy.
The current trend, away from consensual policing and towards policing by stealth, suggests a somewhat different agenda.
I may, of course, be ‘jumping at shadows’ but the on-going extension of the powers of state in the area of covert surveillance (recently brought into sharp focus by revelations of whistle-blower Edward Snowden) suggest otherwise. The actions of MI5 and GCHQ, the infiltration of peaceful, law-abiding protest groups, and the willingness of Central Government to use our Police Force to impose the will of big business on local communities, all point to a tectonic shift in the relationship between Government and the electorate.
Central Government, of course, find it easy to justify all of this in the current climate of fear and xenophobia generated by the ‘war on terror’, but am I the only person reminded of the perpetual shadowy wars fought in Orwell’s 1984 used by Big Brother to maintain a constant state of emergency.
The use of surveillance of this kind may, of course, be keeping us safe to a small degree. But does anyone seriously believe that the really dangerous terrorists use technologies that are so flawed, so porous, to hatch their dastardly plans, when even journalists are, I’m told, eschewing emails in favour of good old-fashioned note-book and pen?
(The situation also begs the question, what would the outcome of the ‘war on terror’ have been had the billions spent on military hardware and ordnance been, instead, utilized to improve the living standards of the people who are attracted to these causes)
I am of course reading between a lot of lines here, but I am not alone. This Government (and, in fairness, it’s predecessor, for much of the time) has spent much of the last three years locking horns with the Judiciary (not a body one would automatically associate with left-wing libertarian values) over it’s attempted incursion into civil liberties and human rights (qv Theresa May’s stated intensions for the next Parliament!)
In the context of neo-feudalism, the object of policing is not the upholding of common law, but the maintenance of the police state. Given that the ‘soma’ of the current generation is largely technological, the achievement of this aim, in a society unparalleled for it’s propensity for exposing it’s most private details for public scrutiny, will be easier than it ever was for the Stazi, or the NKVD.
Thanks for thes thoughts. brings together much of what I have been thinking. Now I know we are living in interesting times.
Andrews raises very good points.
“Our one real hope of confronting this situation is to adapt the mechanisms that destroyed feudalism, which was the rise of industry and trade in goods — not mercantilism, for that was a specific approach to money, but mercantile activity. The production of wealth and goods through trade eventually superseded (though did not, of course, abolish completely, far from it) the power of wealth derived from land.”
One of the problems is that the phoney money is being used to control and own the real productive wealth of the world – not unlike what drug lords and criminal cartels do using money laundering actually. The elite have a hand in nearly every aspect of economic life – manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, energy, agriculture, transportation, etc, etc.
The key will be utilising local currencies and financial arrangements such as Andrew pointed out (LETS, credit unions) to develop alternative regional and local economies. Over time these may supersede and overtake the ‘elite-owned’/neo-feudal economy.
The question then is will the ‘elite’ use their political power to regulate these local economies out of existence? An example of this would surely have to be in the area of complementary medicine, where the pharmaceuticals utilise their political muscle to attempt to regulate and shut down any alternatives to their drug based solutions. Ultimately we are faced with a political showdown as those in power will do everything in their power to prevent a change to the status quo.