Over 300 years after the birth of capitalism, we continue to hear arguments put forth by economists, politicians, bureaucrats, and pundits, in favor of “free market” capitalism. These proponents argue against any role of government in economic policy and deem competition as THE universal law which in and of itself is both self-sustaining as well as self-correcting. It is said, therefore, that the market should be left unto itself separated from government involvement. But is this true? Namely, a) does the market operate independently of government in reality? and b) is competition in and of itself a self-sustaining and self-correcting principle, both in theory and historically? I argue, no and no, and so does history!
Going back to its colonial origins, at a time during which the vast majority of private enterprise was concentrated in agriculture, and you will see that the businesses which were in operation were officially authorized by the British Crown (and taxed accordingly). During that colonial phase, domestic production was determined largely by the interests of The Crown, with quotas in place for certain goods such as cotton and tobacco, for example. So even then, the economy did not operate freely and independently from government. Of course, entrepreneurs did exist, namely in artisan form, as local specialized small businesses. But even these were subject to The Crown, which issued the patents and business licenses via the colonial governments, and collected the taxes.
With Americas independence came domestic v. overseas oversight, and with time, an increasingly “hands on” approach of government in economic policy. Government engaged in partnerships with private enterprises, particularly in sectors it deemed strategic. As part of this partnership, government policy would reflect the interests of these capitalists. Also, government would use the revenue of taxpayers to prop up those business with subsidies designed to grant them further advantage, outside the parameters of organic market competition.
Consequently, by the end of the 19th century, the US economy had morphed into monopoly capitalism, where a few giant corporations dominated virtually every sector of the US economy: agriculture and ranching, banking and finance, mining and energy, infrastructure, and weapons manufacturing, etc. This prompted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 and other laws designed to regulate against “monopoly capitalism” what are by definition CARTELS–and you thought it was just a board game we played as kids.
What is a cartel? It is, by definition, a group or organization composed of key actors which control a given type of enterprise, and do so using various tactics, including violence and subjugation. Sound familiar? What do we have today in every single industry in this economy? They are cartels. Name an industry: “defense”, “insurance”, medical, pharmaceutical, finance that is not dominated by Transnational Monopoly Corporations–are these not cartels? Do they not control every sector? Do they not buy off politicians? Imposing their goods and services on the masses? Shedding blood where necessary to fulfill its agenda of never-ending profit and power? It is just that these cartels are official, not illicit as the ones that are popularly demonized. Officially, they operate within the framework of the law. But those laws are of their own making, via the lobby system. And certainly, they operate with practical impunity behind the scenes.
Dark alliances are forged behind closed doors. In war rooms, imperial coups and interventions are plotted. Meanwhile, in your local stores and online, you are presented with almost infinite options and are told that it is freedom. Yet most of your purchases profit only the few cartels who dominate every product sector–the Amazon’s and Walmart’s, the Johnson and Johnsons, the Procter and Gambles, the Chiquita’s, and the JP Morgan Chases that take 1.5% off the top of every debit purchase, and the Visa’s and Mastercard’s that charge 15%, 20%, 30% in usury.
So, what is the solution? Or better put, what are some solutions? The first requirement, in my opinion, is more dialogue on the issue, both at the micro levels of the dinner table and community, and the macro levels of the official narrative. And dialogue that is grounded in a healthy balance of facts and opinion, without the sabotage of rash emotion or the offense of patronizing.
Secondly, I believe that there need to be more NGOs, International organizations, and grassroots organizations that are oriented towards educating the multitude on these matters, while also placing pressures on both the Cartels and the politicians and bureaucrats who serve their interests in the sphere of public policy.
Third, we need new leadership in government that is truly committed to the best interests of the common wo/man within the context of globalization as it is unfolding, particularly as it relates to an unprecedented intersection of different people’s across the world, their interdependence, and their dependency on Transnational Monopoly Corporations, or Cartels as I call them, for both wages as well as everyday essentials. Such a government, composed of such leaders, would amongst other things make as it’s priority to dismantle such Cartels, a shifting of resources away from subsidies and protectionism of such, and initiatives aimed at establishing healthy competition amongst proportional fellow competitors. In other words, if free market capitalism is to ever exist, it is only possible through a different model of political economy, one that takes back power from those who currently wield it, and offers a healthier, more equitable market that is consistent with what we value as a civilization.
Truth2Power!