Capitalism as justification for neo-fuedalism

The older I get, the more and more I find myself sympathising with
Socialism.  I should immediately state that I am not referring
specifically to Marxism which I reject, but the overall idea that the
means of production should not be primarily owned and controlled by
those who hold Capital.  Marxism does not adequately solve the problem
of employee liberation, as the employee is still employed by the
state, and therefore is still not in democratic control over the means
of production.  Further, the employee in a Marxist Socialist state
does not have property rights over what they directly produce, that
is, "mix their labour with", a charge which can somewhat ironically be
levelled at Capitalism as well.  The Communist theory that the
employee is in indirect control because the state represents the
workers is not adequate.  In practice is not what occurs, dictatorship
of the proletariat will tend towards dicatorship, period.

The sense that Capitalism is increasingly becoming untenable isn't
solely due to its systemic issues, but the manner in which Capitalist
"culture" has evolved, in particular since the rise of Neo-Liberalism
and some parts (not all), of the Libertarian movement.  Included in
this is Anarcho-Capitalism which is mercifully on the fringes for now,
though may pose a greater risk in the future.  Any socio-economic
system always has two elements which define it.  The first element is
the strict dictionary definitions, the rules and principles laid out
in founding texts and the characteristics which are publically stated
by its adherents to define the system.  For many people, these written
defintions are enough to determine where a system sits taxonomically.
The second aspect is how its adherents behave, what they internally
consider necessary moral precepts to make their system function.  This
often includes elements which aren't necessary to meet the dictionary
defintion, but are culturally necessary to make the system work, or to
identify with it.  These cultural elements are just as important in
defining the system as are the standard definitions, for the two
cannot be seperated.  Capitalism as a system of private ownership of
the means of production and private property cannot be seperated from
the culture which exists within Capitalist socities.

The cultural aspects are all the expectations and attributes of the
system, which go beyond its definition.  In Capitalism, this includes
    - Being employed and having to "get a job" from an employer.
    - Deference to employers.  Employees should treat the employer as
      an authority that has control over them personally.
    - Deference to landlords and those with private property.
    - Placing the needs of entrepeneurs, large business owners and
      holders of Capital first.  That is, the belief that those who
      own, or acquire Capital are entitled to political privilege or
      priority.
    - In some cases, the idea that only property owners/tax
      payers/employed should have the democratic right to vote, or are
      entitled to additional civic privileges and rights, even if just
      in social standing.
    - Placement of the economy above national wellbeing.
    - Redistribution of wealth as automatically being theft, or a
      "necessary evil".
    - Income from private property morally belonging to the title
      holder.  This relates to the previous point.  Capitalist culture
      normitavely assigns income incurred through an asset to the
      asset holder.
    - Selective interpretation of property rights.  Landlords,
      business owners, capital holders have absolute property rights
      over what they produce and any capital gains, income or rent
      earned through that property.  Their right to claim what they
      mix their labour with as being their property is absolute. But
      tenants, labourers are subject to a different standard, where
      their property rights are alienable and the philosophical
      justifications for private property are more flexible, as per
      the wishes of the ruling class.

This list isn't exhaustive, but indicates many of the attributes that
people believe are incontrovertible aspects of Capitalism, despite the
text book defintion not mentioning or requiring these cultural
aspects.

One teltale sign that Capitalism is becoming more and more on the nose
is the number of people who support it in theory, but are reverting to
the "no true Scotsman" fallacy when defending it in practice.  One can
find, especially among Libertarians, a pronounced faith in Capitalism,
but a denial that the current system is Capitalism.  It seems that
even they would not want to claim the current system as one of thier
own.  They claim that Capitalism isn't really what we are living under
today, but it is something that hasn't been implemented yet.  They
blame government intervention for why the system stinks, but this
doesn't wash because government regulation doesn't mean no market
economy, or no private ownership of means of production.  Libertarians
and many Free Marketeers would disagree, but on examination their
method of argument is to set the bar for what is considered a "Free
Market", or "Private Property" so high, that it can never be reached.
Their "true Scotsman" not only doesn't exist, but can't.  There can be
no problem with Free Market Capitalism, because according to their
view, any Free Market Capitalism which has a systemic issue isn't
Capitalism.

Another form of Cultural Capitalists are far more pernicious, and
aren't just limited to the fringes of Libertarianisn,
Anarcho-Capitalisim and Hoppeanism, but are to be found in the ranks
of Free Marketters, Libertarians, AnCaps and Silicon Valley types.
These people may believe that there is "no true Capitalism" in
practice, but their motive isn't liberty, but to create a type of
neo-feudal system, where those rightfully born to rule may lord it
over the peasants.  Hans Herman Hoppe is one of the more extreme, and
to give credit where it is due, honest proponents, but many other
pro-Capitalists hold this view and cynically pass off as economic
morality.

By its real name, it is Neo-Fuedalism using Capitalism for control.
As the modern Capitalist culture involves many hold-overs from the
Feudal era, the leap from Capitalism to Neo-Feudalism is not as great
as it may appear to be.  Note that even though a system of private
property and a market based economy doesn't preclude strong workers
rights, or a system of self-employment, or an end to wage labour, or
distributing wealth obtained by rent of natural resources, the
cultural aspects of Capitalism do preclude them.  The Capitalist
culture, inculculated in humans from the beginning of their education
ensures that people naturally associate Capitalism with class
heirarchies, with there being "job creators" and those who must the
thankful for the opportunity to work. This adoption of Capitalist
culture leads people to accept their privacy being invaded by
employers snooping their social media accounts, that they don't have a
birth right to use a share of natural resources and that they can be
considered social waste if an employer has no use for their labour.
For an outside to our culture, perhaps someone who just emerged from a
Hunter Gatherer society, these aspects of our culture may see quite
strange indeed, but to us they are normal, because we have adopted and
internalised the underlying morality.

Some may argue that this is just the way our society works, and it is
necessary to achieve maximume economic efficiency, but we must ask the
question, where to from here?  For ANY political or economic system,
the question "where to from here" is a complex one.  The answer
doesn't lie in what the ideology proclaims is the end goal, whether
the stateless Communist society or the Free Market Utopia, but in what
the system, when combined with human behaviour and inclinations must
yield.  It is here were we must separate ourselves from those who
believe that Capitalism can exist in perpetuity as a system of free
individuals trading and producing net benefit for all.  All systems
have a moral component, and as we've already seen, the moral component
of our current economic system represents a power play between people,
and power plays inevitably result in conflict.  The pertinent question
is, on what side of the conflict do we sit?  How will this conflict
play out, and how do we position ourselves in an advantageous
position?  The Marxists see the conflict as one of class struggle,
which is partly correct, but their metaphysics of Dialectical
Materialism leads to a different conclusion as to how this will play
out