As I noted in the previous installment, the Great Reinitialization, if its architects have their way, would involve transformations in almost every aspect of life.
Here, I’ll limit my discussion to the economics of the Big Reset as promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), as well as recent developments that have driven these plans forward.
As FA Hayek suggested in his introductory essay Collectivist economic planning, socialism can be divided into two aspects: the ends and the means. The socialist means is collectivist planning, while the ends, at least under proletarian socialism, are the collective property of the means of production and the “equal” or “equitable”. »Distribution of finished products. Distinguishing these two aspects in order to rule out the question of ends and focus on the means, Hayek suggested that collectivist planning could be put to the service of ends other than those associated with proletarian socialism: “An aristocratic dictatorship, for example, may use the same methods to promote the interest of a racial or other elite or in the service of another decidedly anti-egalitarian goal. 2 Collectivist planning may or may not come up against the problem of calculation, depending on whether a market in the factors of production is retained. If a market for the factors of production is maintained, then the computational problem would not apply strictly.
The collectivist planners of the Great Reset are not aimed at eliminating factor markets. On the contrary, they aim to drive the ownership and control of the most important factors to those which are enshrined in “stakeholder capitalism.” 3 The productive activities of said stakeholders, for their part, would be guided by the directives of ‘a coalition of governments under a unified and political mission, especially those set out by the WEF itself.
While these corporate stakeholders would not necessarily be monopolies in itself, the objective of the WEF is to give as much control as possible over production and distribution to these company stakeholders, with the aim of eliminating producers whose products or processes are deemed unnecessary or hostile to the wishes of the globalists for “a fairer, greener future.” Naturally, this would imply constraints on production and consumption and also an expanded role for governments to enforce those constraints – or, as Klaus Schwab put it in context of the covid crisis, “the return of the big government” 4 – as if the government has not been big and grown in all this time.
Schwab and the WEF promote stakeholder capitalism against supposedly rampant “neoliberalism”. Neoliberalism is a nosy word that represents anything leftists deem bad with the socio-economic order. It is the common enemy of the left. Needless to say, neoliberalism – which Schwab loosely defines as “a body of ideas and policies that can be defined as promoting competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention and economic growth over social welfare ”5 – is a straw man. Schwab and his society erect neoliberalism as the source of our economic woes. But to the extent that “anti-liberalism” has been at play, the government favoring industries and actors within industries (or corporatocracy), and not competition, has been the source of what Schwab and his ilk denounce. The big reset would amplify the effects of the corporatocracy.
However, the objectives of the WEF are not to plan all aspects of production and therefore direct all individual activities. Rather, it is a matter of limiting the possibilities of individual activity, including consumer activity, by crowding out industries and producers of industries from the economy. “All countries, from the United States to China, must participate and every industry, from oil and gas to technology, must be transformed.” 6
As Hayek noted, “when the medieval guild system was at its peak and trade restrictions were most extensive, they were not used as a means of actually directing individual activity.” Likewise, the Great Reset is not aimed at a strictly collectivist. planning the economy as much as recommends and demands neofeudalist restrictions that would go beyond anything since medieval times – other than under state socialism itself, that is. In 1935, Hayek noted how economic restrictions had already led to market distortions:
With our attempts to use the old apparatus of restrictionism as an almost daily instrument of adjustment to change, we have probably already gone much further in the direction of central planning of current activity than ever before … important. realizing in any survey of planning possibilities that it is a mistake to assume capitalism as it exists today is the alternative. We are certainly as far removed from capitalism in its pure form as we are from any system of central planning. Today’s world is all interventionist chaos.8
How much further, then, would the Great Reset take us to the kinds of restrictions imposed under feudalism, including the economic stasis that feudalism brought about!
I call this neofeudalism “corporate socialism” – not only because the rhetoric to win adherents derives from socialist ideology (“equity”, “economic equality”, “collective good”, “shared destiny”, etc. ) but also because the reality sought after is de facto a monopoly control of production through the elimination of non-conforming producers – that is, a tendency towards monopoly of production which is characteristic of socialism. These interventions would not only add to the already existing “interventionist chaos”, but would further distort markets to an unprecedented degree outside of centralized socialist planning. in itself. The elites could try to determine, a priori, consumer needs and wants by limiting production to acceptable goods and services. They would also limit production to the types accessible to governments and producers who join the program. The added regulations would drive small and medium producers into bankruptcy or black markets, as black markets could exist under a digital currency and a larger centralized bank. As such, the restrictions and regulations would tend towards a static, caste-like system with corporate oligarchs at the top, and “really existing socialism” 9 for the vast majority below. Increased wealth for a few, “economic equality” under reduced conditions, including universal basic income, for the rest.
Coronavirus lockdowns, riots and corporate socialism
The lockdowns of the Covid-19, and to a lesser extent the riots on the left, have led us towards corporate socialism. The draconian lockdowns employed by governors and mayors and the destruction perpetrated by rioters just happen to be doing the job corporate socialists like the WEF want to do. In addition to destabilizing the nation-state, these policies and policies help destroy small businesses, thereby eliminating competitors.
As the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) points out, lockdowns and riots have combined to level a double punch that is knocking out millions of small businesses – “the backbone of the US economy” – everywhere. in America. FEE reported that
7.5 million small businesses in America are at risk of going out of business. A more recent survey showed that even with federal loans, nearly half of all small business owners say they will have to shut down permanently. The toll has already been severe. In New York City alone, home orders forced more than 100,000 small businesses to shut down.ten
Meanwhile, as FEE and others have noted, there is no evidence that the lockdowns have done anything to slow the spread of the virus. Likewise, there is no evidence that Black Lives Matter has done anything to help black lives. If anything, the rioting and murderous campaigns of Black Lives Matter and Antifa have proven that black lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter. In addition to murdering blacks, the rioters Black Lives Matter and Antifa have done enormous damage to black businesses and neighborhoods, and therefore to the lives of blacks.11
As small businesses have been crushed by the combination of draconian lockdowns and outrageous follies, corporate giants like Amazon have thrived like never before. As the BBC noted, at least three of the tech giants – Amazon, Apple and Facebook – enjoyed massive gains during lockdowns, 12 gains that were spurred, to a lesser extent, by riots that cost $ 1 billion to $ 2 billion in property damage. 13 In the three months ending in June, “Amazon’s quarterly profit of $ 5.2 billion (£ 4 billion) was the largest since the company started in 1994 and occurred despite heavy expenditure on protective equipment and other measures due to the virus ”. Amazon sales are up 40% in the three months ending in June.
As reported by TechCrunch, Facebook and its platforms WhatsApp and Instagram saw a 15% increase in the number of users, bringing revenues to a total of $ 17.74 billion in the first quarter.14 The total number of users Facebook’s number rose to 3 billion in March, or two-thirds of the world’s Internet users, a record. Apple’s revenue soared over the same period, with quarterly profits up 11% year-over-year to $ 59.7 billion. “Walmart, the nation’s largest grocer, said profits rose 4% to $ 3.99 billion,” in the first quarter of 2020, as reported on Washington post.15
The number of small businesses has been nearly halved by covid-19 lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter / Antifa riots, as corporate giants consolidated their grip on the economy, as well as their power over expression individual on the Internet and beyond. . So, it would appear that the closures, closures, partial closures, as well as riots, are exactly what the big resettlers ordered, although I am not hereby suggesting that they ordered them. More likely, they have seized the opportunity to eliminate the undergrowth of small and medium-sized businesses from the economy in order to make compliance simpler and more pervasive.
Ultimately, the Great Reset is just a propaganda campaign, not a button the globalist oligarchs can push at will – although the WEF has portrayed it like this.16 Their plans must be thwarted with better ones. economic ideas and concerted individual actions. The only reasonable response to the Great Reset Project is to challenge it, introduce and promote more competition, and demand the full reopening of the economy, whatever the peril. If that means small producers and distributors must unite to challenge government decrees, so be it. New professional associations, in an effort to thwart the big reset, must be formed before it is too late.
We are witnessing a corporate takeover and the forced mutation of humanity.
#Great #Reset #Part #Corporate #Socialism #Dateway