Talk:Neofeudalism/Archive 1

message: I haven't seen any recent discussion or edits made in response to the various criticisms of the article or its confusing, disorganized condition (a paragraph discussing its contemporary usage followed by a paragraph about the word's history, followed by paragraph about right-wing politicians, followed by another paragraph about etymology, followed aby another paragraph about contemporary usage, followed by more partisan political discussion, followed by more contemporary usage, etc., etc.) so I re-arranged a bit and tried to polish the article by minimizing contentious material applying the term to specific individuals or groups. I added headers, tried to clean it up to a more NPOV by removing partisan issues from the lead section and sticking to a general meaning of the term. I kept all the citations, and didn't remove the criticisms of the term, but tried to eliminate the earlier feel of the article that defined the term as only a pejorative term and effectively denied that it could be a legitimate descriptive term. I felt that that tone was not appropriate for an encyclopedia article and was rooted in partisan political conflicts coming from the edits of apologetics for various policies or politicians that may have been falsely accused of being neofeudal.
I also tried to minimize direct references to specific individuals and parties in order to minimize the political polarization that has kept a useful definition for the term from evolving here to date. It is a highly-charged term in contemporary politics, but so is Nazi and that's no excuse for the article to be a mess of partisan nit-picking. Please correct any mistakes I may have made, but for future edits, let's try to ensure that any references to specific politicians or their parties are, to the greatest extent possible, made in the articles of the individuals or groups in question. This article should define the term and the concept it refers to, not which current politicians are or aren't neofeudal.
If someone absolutely must discuss whether any particular entity is furthering neofeudal policies, please do it in a seperate article to deal with Neofeudalism controversy in United States politics so as not to destroy this article in the conflict that will certainly arise from such speculation. Thank you. Kholtyn 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: (I de-indented this, because 4 indents seems somewhat excessive.)
Glad to know someone sees it as it really is. :)
The neofeudalists' self-description as conservative is simply wordplay, effective rhetoric in a society where many people (even most liberals) tend to equate the word "conservative" with prudence and virtue. 
The groups of people we lump together as "conservative" really should be viewed as at least three very separate groups; aside from the coalition between the latter two groups, there's very little actually connecting them.
*True conservatives: These are, unfortunately, all too rare in our society. John McCain might be an example. I have a lot of respect for this sort of person, because they are usually thoughtful, socially conscious people who happen to be highly skeptical of most liberal planning and socialist ideology... and that's not at all a bad thing. Every society needs people like this, because if there were only us lefties, the number of half-baked ideas let to run in our society would be staggering. (Oh wait, that is happening... just from the other side.) Of course, many true conservatives would be considered moderate to moderate-liberal in our day, because centrist from a circa 2004 American perspective means intermediate between progressive and regressive, and true conservatives are actually a more grounded sort of progressive.
*Goofy Old Men (and Women): Undersexed  Calvinists characterized by some sort of psychotic depression that comes along with believing 98% of your fellow humans are proscribed for eternal hellfire. These types often deliver long, frustrated rants about the evils of homosexuality while ignoring the more destructive evils of corporate greed, war, and misogyny and racism. They preach religious doctrines involving a psychotic, misogynist, vindictive God that is merely a projection of their own hatred for humanity, life, and themselves. They hold up signs saying "Thank God for Aids" (when I first saw that image, I swear I wanted to snap that person's neck) and tell us how we should thank God for the horrific slaughter of thousands on 9/11, as it was divine retribution for immorality (funny, a man named Osama said the same thing). They don't realize that this behavior is more likely to leave reasonable people turned off to religion and spirituality, which is really quite unfortunate. They present themselves as representatives of God, which is blasphemy of the highest order.
*Corporates: Hedonistic pseudo-sophisticates who use occupational politicking and corporate looting to aspire to aristocracy. Unfortunately, they have absolutely no idea how to live, because working 90 hours a week for a corporation tends to exterminate the inner life. Their personalities become more and more warped with each passing year. Just as the Goofy Old Men pervert religion to match their own disfigured psyches, Corporates reshape economic, social, and cultural life into a reflection of their own warped striver selves, so that many Americans have to conform to their sick mold just to survive. The Corporates aren't conservative at all; they love excess way too much. They might downsize in the name of conservative prudence, but there's nothing conservative about eight-figure salaries for executives. They're engaging in a massive undertaking to gut and loot America, because one would have to be an idiot not to know that all the downsizing-and-understaffing is nothing but immoral profiteering. Of course, they easily blind the public to this fact. Corporates claim to be conservative, but they're only prudent regarding what they give to other people; they're quite the opposite when something of their own is at stake.
The word "conservative" has been applied to all three of these groups of people, which is fallacious. There is very little connection between true conservatism and the philosophy of the Goofy Old Men and Corporates. To draw the connections:
#True conservatives manage to win the respect of the American people by being fiscally prudent, reasonable individuals who (along with liberals) contributed to the betterment of society. This was in the 1970s, after a few well-intentioned liberal failures (amid many successes), most notably a war that a Democratic president got us into.
#Seeing that most Americans equated the word "conservative" with virtue, moreso than "liberal", the Corporates hijacked conservative philosophy and created a new, virulent and radical breed thereof. They further glamourized their own perverse character by dangling shallow, spiritually dead yuppieism in front of Americans as a legitimate aspiration. Now, note that these faults can't be pinned on conservatism itself; if this were a socialist society, the same rotten people (e.g. the Corporates) would pretend to be liberals. All this was in the 1980s, during the so-called "Reagan Revolution".
#As the modern-day Pharisees and, therefore, inclined always to side with wealth (why strive for social justice when it's easier just to declare one's own privilege a sign of divine favor?) the Goofy Old Men decided to ally themselves with the Corporates, forming the coalition we see today.
#That was enough to get things going. Take a cauldron, throw in a few backward inarticulate racists, three scoops of war-loving loonies, six cups of multinational corporate interest, 2 tablespoons of so-called "morality" crusade, legions of lobbyists, corporate lawyers, and other power-players, a bit of high-society idle matter, a few public "intellectuals" for-hire, and then just a dash of leggy right-wing blonde woman (Corporata needs to present itself as sexy and elite, or else it has nothing; for example, if they don't replace or repair Ann Coulter in a few years, the Right will lose considerable respect) and... bam! You've got one of the most powerful conglomerates in the world, controlling several national governments, trillions of dollars worth of money, and the occupational destinies of millions. You're ready to fight and win culture wars. Hell, if you've got an ambitious monkey sitting around bored, looking for something to break, you can even get a real war going on. All this happened in the 1990s and 2000s, and is what we see today.
Clearly, there's nothing conservative about this. Nothing at all... The threat that this conglomeate of twisted, wicked interests presents to our society is quite severe: Left to their own devices, the Corporates will downsize America into a lopsided, coercion economy, and the Goofy Old Men will establish a theocracy. To apply the term "neofeudalism" to them is utterly appropriate.
End Rant. (Wow, that was long.)
Mike Church 21:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply: Corporate neofeudalism vs. conservatism

message: While the most recent edits did remove some of the leftist POV, and also improved the clarity of many things in the article, they inadvertently took the article in a rightward direction. Here are some changes I made.
As a civilization declines, as some have alleged the current corporate civilization is doing or about to do, however, a class of people able to take advantage of this dependency emerges, and fashions itself the new upper class.
I added that some have alleged that this civilization is declining since to include the claim without said modifier makes a stronger claim, that it is declining.
The economic and social policies of late-20th century individuals identifying as "conservative", it has been alleged by many including many including Noam Chomsky...
See Talk:George W. Bush or above, in this article, for "identifying as conservative". Also, "many including Noam Chomsky" is justified because I hear the claim all over the place... message boards on fark.com, political commentators, discussions at lunch.
It has also been established sociomathematically that some common corporate restructurings, such as downsizing and efforts to increase competition within firms, are creating a society whose sociological picture, increasingly, resembles the familiar image of medieval feudalism.
Seems POV, but it's actually quite factual. 
As for downsizing, most corporations have made permanent changes in management structure. For example, it used to be about a 1:3 pyramid that most corporations used (that is, for each worker at a certain level, there were three workers at the level below) and now it's 1:12. The conclusion is that more people are at the bottom. 
instead turning into a money-making tool for its the elite.
"The elite" changed back from "its owners". Who exactly are the owners of 80-90% of a corporation? Recent Mexican immigrants? Displaced factory workers? Nope, not them. Oh yeah, the elite. It's factual.
The corporation may maintain its profitability, but subjective moral decline may ensue.
"Almost always" (2 edits ago) had to go, and thank you for yanking that.
I wrote "may ensue". Most Americans are "anti-corporate critics" (i.e. complain about their corporate employer, if nothing else) so the phrase wasn't needed. I think "may ensue" is pretty neutral.
Downsizing, fueled by executive and shareholder greed and justified within the ideology of profit motive, can result from temptations stemming from this bottom-line mentality.
Greed (which is not a value judgment; "greedy algorithm" is a term that appears in math and computer science and the term does not decry the algorithm as immoral) is source, "profit motive" is the ideology that justifies such behavior.
The specific purpose of downsizing is, usually, to improve profitability by intentionally understaffing remaining workers, whose salaries will usually not increase in tandem with rising productivity expecations. If they are, indeed, understaffed by their superiors but nonetheless dependent upon the work, remaining workers will be required to work excessive hours, often to the detriment of their health, in order to meet the increased production standards.
None of that contradicts observed fact. This is what has been happening in the 1990s.
During the mid-2000s, at which point many believed that the current corporate regime was declining, and believed the greed of allegedly neofeudalist decision-makers to be primarily at fault, even college-educated Americans were sometimes consigned to menial service labor.
Paragraph needed clarity work.
If this corporate decline were to occur on a large scale within American society (as in the 1990s and 2000s) it, because economic life is so important within the society, might represent the (not inexorable) deterioration of the society itself.
Changed paragraph's wording and strength: Original version (written by myself) seemed to state (economic decline => societal decline). I edited the paragraph to indicate that this is only a possibility, not an established fact.
Modern neofeudalism (heading change)
We've already discussed why neofeudalism is not actually conservative. While neofeudalists may masquerade under that label, they are not in fact that. Hence "examples of conservatism as feudalism" is inappropriate.
Critics of this policy argue that a decreasing minimum wage is to the benefit of the neofeudalist.
"Left-wing" is value-charged. 
Another policy supported by neofeudalists is deregulation. Deregulation, it should be noted, has been supported by non-neofeudalist conservatives and even liberals, at times. In some cases, however, it has been used by neofeudalists as a mechanism for massive profiteering. A modern example is a case in California where, following deregulation of the energy industry, the prices of this inelastic good went up by a factor of more than 100.
Provided concrete example of dereg. as immoral profiteering, then stated that people who believe in deregulation are not always neofeudalists, since to say otherwise would be inaccurate.
If the number of high-paying skilled or professional positions within the American workforce is reduced, the number of people unable to find such labor will increase, and the underclass will swell in number as a result.
Clarity fix, and factual.
Mike Church 14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes of May 4, 2004

message: Is this article for real? -- VV 21:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Denial won't make it any less real.  This is the real agenda of the Reagan-Bush legacy, and there's plenty of real-world evidence to bear it out.  Wake up and smell the coffee. jaknouse 22:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't my question.  But, as a side note, I don't find your analysis terribly persuasive. -- VV 00:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to clarify that I realize that someone may support "neofeudalist" policies without supporting neofeudalism itself.  In fact, neofeudalism may not be the specific policy of the policymakers; it may simple be an effect of that policy, just as human rights abuses may not have been the intended policy of many who supported apartheid, for instance; it was just the effect of that policy, and we must make that distinction.  Remember, however, for all the Bushwa about tax cuts, that a single wage-earner whose yearly income is less than $8,000 still pays federal income tax.  Can you live on $8,000 a year? jaknouse 00:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: who is disputing what? What can we do to make the dispute header go away? Sam [Spade] 01:07, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute 

message: From what I can tell, there was a massive dispute about how NPOV the original article was that broke out in early 2004, resulting in a vote for a complete re-write.  The re-write is done, the concept has been condensed, and doesn't appear to be written from any particular point of view, mercifully staying away for the moment from delving into contested issues.
So why is this still showing up on the NPOV watchlist? --DSYoungEsq 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What dispute? 

message: There are so few references. The Hartmann article doesn't define neofeudalism or use it in any way other than to suggest the erosion of democracy supposedly reflected by corporations being leagl individuals. The Chomsky quote doesn't seem to use the word. The huge opening section is pretty much original research. --Duncan (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to replace the article with a rewritten version. So improve it! --Loremaster (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article even exist?