Look up the Highland Clearances. It's not a speculative thing, there was a period when massive numbers of British peasants were uprooted, at gunpoint, and forced to leave their jobs. It was as artificial as the mass migrations of Stalin.
The average Aut-Righter, in this day and age, is just a libtard who has realized the Left hates them and has done a 180 to hating Blacks now. That's all there is to them. That's the whole extent of their ideology, or their worldview. Worthless people and I hope for a day when they all get the bullet.
Failed at what? Capitalism was quite good at advancing quality of life for the citizen....but failed at lining pockets of the elite and powerful
Hilaire Belloc - I think, it might have been a different historian - wrote an essay that I once read which went over all the technological advances of the industrial revolution and their timelines, basically completely disproving this idea that the technological advancements themselves lead to the concentration of capital and then the mass migrations. New tech could have been integrated into the old economic arrangement, but the concentration of capital was pursued as a deliberate policy to snowball the wealth of the politically connected and the aristocracy artificially, then it was chalked up as just a result of technology post hoc. It's interesting that slavery was originally on the way out iirc - Thomas Jefferson played a pivotal role in ending the slave trade, and he figured that economics would do the rest. For a while it looked like he was correct. Unfortunately, when the cotton gin was invented before mechanized cotton farming there was a huge spike in demand for raw materials - the same market fluctuation that led to the clearances also led to the rebirth and prolonging of slavery.
There's a difference between rural living and peasant life under feudalism. The main one being that land wasn't a commodity - it couldn't be taken away or sold, you were literally attached to the land on a legal level. If you built something, your descendants were guaranteed to profit from it because the land would always be in your family as long as your family existed. There's a lot of agricultural infrastructure in Europe that was built at this time - for example, if you're a company or corporation nowadays, it doesn't make sense to build stone terraces, as this is an expensive, difficult project that will only pay itself back over generations. If you're a peasant looking out for your posterity, you do have that incentive. In the same way that capitalism harnesses greed to make people production, feudalism harnessed familial bonds and the strong biological bonds associated with that.
Reading about it, the Highland Clearances was done with the support of British rulers, which contradicts the idea of ""legally being attached to the land". If your lord decided that he wants to take your shit, you have very little to do about it. Like what, you'll take him to court? And while famines weren't as common, you're still one disaster away from losing an entire season of work - Be it disease, fire or pests.
It's not like under feudalism money wasn't an issue and you weren't dependent on a ton of elements not under your control. Just these days it's easier to see the cause of prices due to ease of information. And I'd wager under feudalism your lord could outright give your land to other people if he was under the impression you are not using it as well as you could.
I'd take ye olde feudalism over this neo feudalism. At least back then if I were a serf my Lord had a vested interest in my survival so I could tend his crops. Neo feudalism can replace me with a pajeet in an instant.
This is not true, the average wage for American and European workers peaked in the early 1970s at the onset of the stagflation period. Housing in particular was very cheap compared to what we have now--median price in 1972 was $27K, or $200K adjusted for inflation which is literally half of what it is today, and cheaper than it has been for decades. Low-end cars were slightly cheaper in 1972 (albeit far less reliable and more gas guzzling, but gas was cheap too before the oil crisis) than today.
Correct. The corporations would either provide the services the government does, including the service to crush competition, or they would become the government. Powerful people by definition do not play by the rules, they make the rules, as one look at history demonstrates.
Exactly the New Deal was just FDR trying to copy the successful economic policies of Hitler and the NSDAP. It still took the US to enter into the war before the Depression ended. Meanwhile Germany was able to exit it via peacetime.
It's not. The US is not a fascist state, it doesn't work under a corporatist system. Trade unions and guilds aren't the coordinators in the economy nor do companies serve the interests of the state.
Counterpoint: We had social media actively censor themselves after being ordered to by the government. Government backed practices and propaganda (trannies/racial division/etc) are being supported by corporations against their own economic interests because of funding directly/indirectly by the government. It can also be argued that corporate data collection benefits the government, and allows them to spy on citizens in a manner that isn't legally questionable. They may not have mandated party members on their boards yet, but large corporations are an unofficial arm of the government.
Germany may have made it work had they not undertaken their rearmament program which was so ambitious that it forced Hitler to ally with the USSR and by 1939 was crashing their economy and forced Hitler's hand well-ahead of the target goal of "war by 1945."
You're describing the symptoms instead of the cause. Capitalism is a system that rewards economic efficiency. At some point, a firm will smash its competition and faces the choice of either remaining static (a losing proposition) or continuing to grow, and the latter requires bending the government to its will. How is that any different than medieval times when rich nobles--who were heirs to decades or centuries of successful growth as landlords--did the same?
It contradicts it in the same way the the nationalizations under the Bolsheviks 'contradicts' the idea of legally owning property under capitalism - of course the rules of capitalism will be broken as capitalism was ended as a system and superseded by another one with new rules. The Highland Clearances were ones of the events which marked the end of feudalism as a system precisely because the old rules that allowed feudalism to exist were being overturned. The new rules were capitalist ones - land was now a commodity that was bought and sold independent of the people living on it. A lord, in fact, could not just 'take your land' in the Middle Ages - the Lord didn't own land itself, he owned a fief or something similar, which came with the peasants living on it. He wasn't entitled to sell the land itself, or to even use all of the land itself, he was entitled to a portion of the proceeds from that land as rents. And this was really a better arrangement for him, as the labor of the peasants was what was truly valuable in those days - getting rid of them would have meant having a tract of fallow land that wasn't generating any money and a bunch of pissed-off vagabonds that hate you roaming around with torches and pitchforks - overall bad governance as far as outcomes go. The first step of expropriation was the lord taking the 'common land' away from the peasants - for centuries, this didn't normally happen. Then one day, the social conditions changed and it did. That marked the beginning of the end for feudalism, as sure as mass nationalizations and expropriation would mark the end of capitalism - because it breaks the rules under which the old system operated.
He could give your land to other people in certain circumstances - but you would come with the land. Modern property rights concerning land came about at the same time as capitalism did - it's referred to as the 'commodification of land' and was a very new thing when it happened - before that there was no market at all for 'land'. Feudalism evolved out of a system of warlords - you had hierarchies of warlords who controlled different 'lands'. What that meant is that they governed over the people living on that land, collected rents and duties, could raise an army if the next guy up the ladder wanted one. Nobody was thinking about micromanaging this or that plot for great productivity and shuffling peasants around - you as a lord wanted land with people living on it - that was worth more than barren land - as it gave you power and prestige.
They got rid of the post-war Corporatist arrangement because powerful unions got a decent share of the pie that the elites already owned the majority of. There also was a strong drive in the post-war arrangement to keep a decent quality of life going within Capitalist systems because as Von Bismark observed during the second Reich, a government offering the plebs services keeps them both happy and loyal. This also resulted in a lot of inefficiencies that were seen as ideologically incompatible with the free market ideas that US wanted the world to be built upon.
The main economic problems of the Soviet Union were not merely limited to the oil markets but also to an excessive focus on heavy industries and an inefficient management structure that refused to computerize until it was too late. The main problem that adopting a semi-open market solved was ensuring enough consumer goods reached the average citizen and having a faster reaction time than the highly centralized structure of the Soviet economy. The excessive focus on heavy industries also ensured that while there would be no shortage of tractors for the farms, a substantial amount of the tractors produced ended up rotting in a field just outside the factory, never to do it's intended work. There also were things that genuinely didn't make sense, such as a case where a laundromat was forced to start scrapping it's machines because they now had a quota to produce a certain amount of scrap metal, because last year they had scrapped old machines and procured new ones.
Not the best example since retail in general and department stores in particular got fucked by ecommerce going mainstream, specially after the lockdowns.
Most places people talk about planning to escape to are only that way because USD is king, so if the west actually collapses most everything will be ratfucked.
Go where?