The political adage “If you cannot beat them, join them” has been well-known for centuries. So, the Left made one extra step and arrived at the “if you cannot beat them, lead them.” The Left has been trying (unsuccessfully) various methods to eliminate capitalists and private property.
Eventually, Leftists learned their lesson and decided to preside over private property instead of confiscating and spreading it around. Lenin used it (the so-called “New Economic Policy” in the Soviet Union 1921-1928), Mussolini used it, Hitler used it, and the Chinese used it. It blatantly violates a well-demarcated borderline between the government and the governed. However, by now, it is the cornerstone of globalism.
Note that the systematic and deliberate infiltration of the state into private economic affairs did not begin with Mussolini. In 17th-century France, for example, Chief Minister Cardinal Richelieu established state-sponsored and state-directed cartels. That resulted in public-private entities that were granted monopoly status in their respective fields. Richelieu aimed not to build a proto-fascist state per se; his cravings were more down-to-earth: France had a war to win. (The following definitions are used: “Socialism is a state of society where most wealth, either de jure or de facto, belongs to a government. Fascism is a form of Socialism where most wealth de facto but not de jure belongs to a government.)
Nevertheless, Cardinal Richelieu deployed state power to consolidate state power even more. His offer to the French merchants was one they could not refuse: guaranteed profits under the protection of the state or guaranteed imprisonment at the Bastille.
The resultant economic landscape in France in the middle of the 17th century comprised numerous stable, privately-owned cartels controlled directly or indirectly by the government. Nevertheless, it did strengthen and consolidate French economic power, especially concerning rivals -- the Habsburgs and England. However, the other side of the same coin was unavoidable -- the government-chartered monopolies, insulated by the state from external competition, pressed the brakes on innovations. In the end, Cardinal Richelieu led the Habsburgs to bankruptcy and France to the dominant power on the European continent.
England and her colonies were provided more economic freedom during the same period. That sealed the fate of two revolutions at the end of the 18th century. The French had no choice but to continue their Left turn. On the other hand, the thirteen overseas British colonies turned Right.
The story of the proto-fascist policies of Richelieu demonstrates the theme observable in all future left-wing economies: a short-term boost in economic activity due to crushing, inescapable state intervention, and then, in the long run, unavoidable decline and stagnation. As it is known, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and the entire Soviet bloc post-World War II followed this course. The demise of Communist China is inevitable for the same reason. A similar fate is awaiting the Davos Oracles of “stakeholder capitalism.” From that outlook, all four of Dumas’s three musketeers were the first proto-anti-fascists.
State-managed “stakeholder capitalism” was known in the 1600s as mercantilism. To use 21st-century terminology, Cardinal Richelieu established a form of stakeholder capitalism in France, where the government served as the only principal stakeholder.
Karl Schwab publicizes “the third way,” “stakeholder capitalism,” as the ultimate solution. His “capitalism” must be quoted because it corresponds to free-market capitalism in only the remotest sense. Note that National Socialists of the Third Reich also run under the banner (or, rather, the smokescreen) of “the third way.” Schwab is painfully aware that “the stakeholder concept competed head-on with Friedman’s notion that ‘the business of business is business’—and it ultimately lost out.”
There are no surprises here. Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism” is just a reformulated branch of leftism, rebranded for the 21st century, commonly known as Fascism. Of course, it is not a replica of 20th-century Fascism; it has been updated and modified to incorporate “climate change,” digital technologies, and the pandemic, and has expanded global outreach. “Planet’s health” becomes the central stakeholder in the global economic system.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 provided conclusive evidence of the unsustainable character of the socialist economy. With its fall, progressive intellectuals were forced to find a new source of inspiration and income, with the latter being their primary concern. Therefore, the myths conceived by the previous generation of leftists had to be revised so that “global cooling” quickly turned into “global warming.” As for the new source of income, the international Left panicked for many years until it realized that its quintessential enemy -- capitalism -- could be exerted to combat capitalism.
From that account, the WEF’s ascendance as the international Left’s de facto leader directly resulted from the Soviet Union’s crash of 1991. The WEF was founded in 1971 under the name of the European Management Forum when cracks in the Soviet Union became an open secret. Shortly after, a campaign began to rehabilitate corporatism. By the time of renaming the European Management Forum into the World Economic Forum in 1987, the term “neo-corporatism” had sufficiently emasculated from any links to old corporatism/fascism.
Despite this, the organization went unnoticed for over two decades, remaining in the shadow of more powerful socialist organizations. The tool the WEF used to win the international socialist race was not its invention: they just modernized the old 1930s Leftist “guaranteed profits” thesis of getting political power from the semi-educated by utilizing control mechanisms instead of ownership redistribution. Thus, the evolution of the WEF runs in parallel with the revival of corporatism.
By the second Obama presidential term, the WEF had decisively won the evolutionary struggle with fellow left-wing peers. Davos became the ecumenical council of the New Left Caliphate, and the race for Assets Under Management was catapulted to the top leftist strategies. Davos is where the blossoming romance between the rich and the left-wing beau monde happens.
The Davos gatherings are a microcosm of what the Left has in mind for the rest of the world. Davosians cling to one of the strictest caste societies, indicated by the color of their badges. Meritocratic considerations do not solely determine the ranking of these individuals in the WEF hierarchy. The color ranking in Davos is loosely based on a person’s position in the outer world. However, like all other left-wing movements, the actual hierarchy in the WEF strictly adheres to inner-Davos priorities -- the distance from the party Führer.
The Alpine resort town of Davos has emerged as a symbol of modern anti-capitalism, but that is only half true. Indisputably, Davos has been propelled to the top of Left Imperialism executives and become the de facto Olympus of left-wing half-men-half-gods. They genuinely believe they have found the cornucopia and met Goddess Abundantia, who has changed her name to State.
Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and a new science founder: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter/X. This piece is adapted from Gary’s forthcoming book, Left Imperialism (Paragon House, 2024).
Image: Ivan Radic
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
visit website
