Apologies if the point is in a linked reference I haven't read yet but a key shift seems to be omitted. The original corporate structure was a Charter that limited scope and power. This was changed by JD Rockefeller with Standard Oil and his influence in redefining the power corporations can wield and eliminating the limits of Charters which then shaped an entire century of power dynamics in favor of expanding corp power in perpetuity.
In the days before the Internet was widely used and libraries still a primary source, rumors of CIA burn list for book titles circulated inside the Beltway. The "burn list" passed to me included the 1904 Ida Tarbell History of Standard Oil and the only reason I would have hunted down and read the books. While I have never seen a FOIA confirmation that the list or purges were actual policy there's good reason why this would be seen as a worthy target of censorship.
For as long as we have reasonably free web it's available now online.
The comment about slavery having largely disappeared from continental Europe during the renaissance only to be re-instituted in the Americas by the East Indian trading companies puts an interesting spin on the so-called 1619 project. I believe the premise of the 1619 project is that the United States was founded on white supremacy and slavery. Given that the east Indian trading companies were able to circumvent national law and implement widespread slavery in the so-called New World does lend some credence to the basic idea. However, I think the missing piece of the puzzle is not the answer to the question of what happened but rather who did it.
The corporate traders of the colonial era appear to have been amoral, sociopathic crony capitalists. In other words, they were very similar to the railroad and oil barons of the late 19 century and the tech barons today. Their vision of the New World was clearly one of enslavement of the masses. However, this enslavement was not limited to those with different skin color. It is my understanding that more than 50% of whites during the colonial era were brought to the colonies as indentured servants. Many were never able to fully escape their state of servitude. And, their descendants certainly suffered from difficulty in the accumulation of inter-generational wealth.
The American revolution effectively ended the corporatist control of the colonies by the East Indian trading companies. Indentured servitude was less common by the time of the American revolution than it had been earlier in the colonial era, but it remained constitutional (and legal in many places in the United States) until after the Civil War. Although the signers of the constitution were split on the issue of African slavery, they were unanimous in agreement on the natural rights of all free men (which did include some small number of Africans and Native Americans). Many look back on this era and wonder why freedom could not have been extended to all adult human beings at once, but those people do not realize what an incredible leap forward it was to recognize that individual farmers and merchants and shopkeepers actually had rights.
There is a good argument to be made that the 1776 project is what set the wheels in motion to finally end the 1619 project. The key point is that the 1619 project was a project of the Kunlangeta not a project of the average white man. They were also victimized by the 1619 project. In fairness, at a certain point after 1776, things got much better for the average white man. And, one of the ways that the enslavement of blacks was able to continue was by allowing the freed white serfs to join the ranks of other free white man in their shared sense of superiority over blacks. Keep in mind that being a free white man did not give you the right to vote under the original constitution. You also needed to be a landowner, which the vast majority of freed white serfs were initially not.
So, it might be fair to say that the colonies were originally ruled by corporate masters who purposely focused their energy on the New World because they were able to circumvent laws outlawing slavery in continental Europe. Yet, it would also be unfair to say that the vast majority of whites who came to this country in the colonial era were part of this corporate project. They were brought here to live miserable lives and work till they dropped dead on the job. At a certain point, they became free men with opportunity to earn money, purchase land, and become full citizens. As at many points in history, those who are freed from oppression often end up siding with the oppressors against the remaining oppressed populations. It's not a good thing, but it was probably necessary for survival. However, that is a very different thing than to say most of those families came here to participate in the pro-slavery project. Arguably, if anybody owes reparations to blacks in America, it is the governments of Great Britain and the Netherlands that allowed their charter corporations to run rampant through the New World for hundreds of years until American patriots threw the bastards out once and for all.
UPDATE: If the birth of America was in part an overthrow of European corporism, then our current state of affairs is interesting. There was a long time after the American revolution where corporations were much more restricted in their behavior. Corporatism became really dominant at the turn of the 20th century. Now, here we are more than a century later, and we are living in an era of corporatism that puts the era of the East Indian trading companies to shame. And, who are the greatest political allies of the corporate masters? A bunch of rich white people mostly clustered around the original northern colonies. 🤔
I was born in the United Kingdom and used to have at least a modicum of national pride. Not any more. (I live in another of its former colonies now, not America.)
Just as an aside, from the man who pretty much invented modern "fascism," there is this: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of the state and corporate power.” -- Benito Mussolini
“Corporatism typically leverages a monopoly on violence for its parasitic ends.”
Gives me a respect for the US's second amendment that I thought I'd never have. We must deprive these entities—ANY entities—of their monopoly on violence.
Biden halted the 10b designated by DoD for US border wall, after campaigning that it was expensive. Spent 2b to stop the contracts and 6m per day to guard the rusting materials.
How do we stop free markets from becoming corporatist?
I don't see the ideal of capitalism not progressing to that in all of history.
I'm convinced that any civilization leads to the hoarding of wealth as the ones who rule create the rules and systems of justice that benefit themselves.
Do you see a technological solution still? That is the sale that is ongoing with the implementation of technocracy.
I've experienced the real world lockdown of tech/internet. Regardless of demand, you cannot sell world beating products outside of the matrix.
There is also a remarkably low invisible ceiling waiting to kneecap competence in business. Regulators are legitimately evil. This is not a unique insight but if you read consumer protection laws they are written to enforce barriers to entry and have nothing at all to do with protecting people.
I personally love tech but its hard not to see the incoming prison.
Apologies if the point is in a linked reference I haven't read yet but a key shift seems to be omitted. The original corporate structure was a Charter that limited scope and power. This was changed by JD Rockefeller with Standard Oil and his influence in redefining the power corporations can wield and eliminating the limits of Charters which then shaped an entire century of power dynamics in favor of expanding corp power in perpetuity.
In the days before the Internet was widely used and libraries still a primary source, rumors of CIA burn list for book titles circulated inside the Beltway. The "burn list" passed to me included the 1904 Ida Tarbell History of Standard Oil and the only reason I would have hunted down and read the books. While I have never seen a FOIA confirmation that the list or purges were actual policy there's good reason why this would be seen as a worthy target of censorship.
For as long as we have reasonably free web it's available now online.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/60692/60692-h/60692-h.htm
Bookmarked
Wow.
The comment about slavery having largely disappeared from continental Europe during the renaissance only to be re-instituted in the Americas by the East Indian trading companies puts an interesting spin on the so-called 1619 project. I believe the premise of the 1619 project is that the United States was founded on white supremacy and slavery. Given that the east Indian trading companies were able to circumvent national law and implement widespread slavery in the so-called New World does lend some credence to the basic idea. However, I think the missing piece of the puzzle is not the answer to the question of what happened but rather who did it.
The corporate traders of the colonial era appear to have been amoral, sociopathic crony capitalists. In other words, they were very similar to the railroad and oil barons of the late 19 century and the tech barons today. Their vision of the New World was clearly one of enslavement of the masses. However, this enslavement was not limited to those with different skin color. It is my understanding that more than 50% of whites during the colonial era were brought to the colonies as indentured servants. Many were never able to fully escape their state of servitude. And, their descendants certainly suffered from difficulty in the accumulation of inter-generational wealth.
The American revolution effectively ended the corporatist control of the colonies by the East Indian trading companies. Indentured servitude was less common by the time of the American revolution than it had been earlier in the colonial era, but it remained constitutional (and legal in many places in the United States) until after the Civil War. Although the signers of the constitution were split on the issue of African slavery, they were unanimous in agreement on the natural rights of all free men (which did include some small number of Africans and Native Americans). Many look back on this era and wonder why freedom could not have been extended to all adult human beings at once, but those people do not realize what an incredible leap forward it was to recognize that individual farmers and merchants and shopkeepers actually had rights.
There is a good argument to be made that the 1776 project is what set the wheels in motion to finally end the 1619 project. The key point is that the 1619 project was a project of the Kunlangeta not a project of the average white man. They were also victimized by the 1619 project. In fairness, at a certain point after 1776, things got much better for the average white man. And, one of the ways that the enslavement of blacks was able to continue was by allowing the freed white serfs to join the ranks of other free white man in their shared sense of superiority over blacks. Keep in mind that being a free white man did not give you the right to vote under the original constitution. You also needed to be a landowner, which the vast majority of freed white serfs were initially not.
So, it might be fair to say that the colonies were originally ruled by corporate masters who purposely focused their energy on the New World because they were able to circumvent laws outlawing slavery in continental Europe. Yet, it would also be unfair to say that the vast majority of whites who came to this country in the colonial era were part of this corporate project. They were brought here to live miserable lives and work till they dropped dead on the job. At a certain point, they became free men with opportunity to earn money, purchase land, and become full citizens. As at many points in history, those who are freed from oppression often end up siding with the oppressors against the remaining oppressed populations. It's not a good thing, but it was probably necessary for survival. However, that is a very different thing than to say most of those families came here to participate in the pro-slavery project. Arguably, if anybody owes reparations to blacks in America, it is the governments of Great Britain and the Netherlands that allowed their charter corporations to run rampant through the New World for hundreds of years until American patriots threw the bastards out once and for all.
UPDATE: If the birth of America was in part an overthrow of European corporism, then our current state of affairs is interesting. There was a long time after the American revolution where corporations were much more restricted in their behavior. Corporatism became really dominant at the turn of the 20th century. Now, here we are more than a century later, and we are living in an era of corporatism that puts the era of the East Indian trading companies to shame. And, who are the greatest political allies of the corporate masters? A bunch of rich white people mostly clustered around the original northern colonies. 🤔
I was born in the United Kingdom and used to have at least a modicum of national pride. Not any more. (I live in another of its former colonies now, not America.)
Just as an aside, from the man who pretty much invented modern "fascism," there is this: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of the state and corporate power.” -- Benito Mussolini
“Corporatism typically leverages a monopoly on violence for its parasitic ends.”
Gives me a respect for the US's second amendment that I thought I'd never have. We must deprive these entities—ANY entities—of their monopoly on violence.
Biden halted the 10b designated by DoD for US border wall, after campaigning that it was expensive. Spent 2b to stop the contracts and 6m per day to guard the rusting materials.
Now wants to spend 10b on UKR national integrity.
How do we stop free markets from becoming corporatist?
I don't see the ideal of capitalism not progressing to that in all of history.
I'm convinced that any civilization leads to the hoarding of wealth as the ones who rule create the rules and systems of justice that benefit themselves.
What if we develop technology that...sidesteps the need for rulers or the ability to ossify and concentrate excess power?
Fatalism prevents us from inventing solutions.
Do you see a technological solution still? That is the sale that is ongoing with the implementation of technocracy.
I've experienced the real world lockdown of tech/internet. Regardless of demand, you cannot sell world beating products outside of the matrix.
There is also a remarkably low invisible ceiling waiting to kneecap competence in business. Regulators are legitimately evil. This is not a unique insight but if you read consumer protection laws they are written to enforce barriers to entry and have nothing at all to do with protecting people.
I personally love tech but its hard not to see the incoming prison.