Feudal California

“The peasants are revolting,” is a 1967 Wizard of Id comic strip gag line, reprised by Mel Brooks in The History of World Part I (1981), that has come back to life. A new feudalism that arose after the end of the Cold War is under attack.

“New feudalism” refers to the replacement of ordinary states with rule coordinated by multi-national business and cultural leaders. Those describing this brand note that both the original and more recent feudalism are marked by the strong concentration of authority and wealth at the top of a social pyramid.

California resembles a feudal state. That’s the conclusion of a series of articles based on a 2012 University of Southern California study of the state’s changing demographics.

From the envy of the world throughout the 20^th century, today’s California boasts levels of overall poverty and income inequality comparable to the third world, with schools ranked near the bottom in the country and housing affordable only to the wealthy. The result: young and talented people are moving out, leaving the exploited poor, the aging and the super rich.

Feudal California is good at producing new billionaires and disrupting local communities. Minority, inner city, and agricultural communities are particular targets. Like the society envisioned in Hunger Games, the pretense of fairness hides another reality.

The cure for the original version of feudalism was simple. Citizens decided against it.

Outside of California, feudalism is having a bumpy ride. Voter revolts in Europe and American reveal a trend. The new feudalism has been tested and found wanting.

If any place in the world could be identified as the source of the fictional Hunger Games or the reality of feudal California, it would be the annual meeting of the heads of state, bankers and corporate leaders held every January at Davos, a ski resort in Switzerland. Feudal California is the product of what has been called “the Davos idea.” The Davos idea is a post-Cold War vision of a world without nations or national borders, unified into one great economic and cultural whole, shepherded by Davos attendees.  The Davos idea has been very good for some and a disaster for many.

2106 British and American voter revolts led this year’s Davos conference to adjust its message and offer “Going Local” as its theme. British Prime Minister Theresa May, representing her revolting citizens, suggested to the assembled bankers, and their communist fellow travelers, that they begin to imagine sharing the fruits of their success. The prime minister, in a talk during the conference, schooled attendees. She suggested

• “putting aside short-term considerations and investing in people and communities for the long-term”
• “working to give something back to communities and supporting the next generation”, and
• attempting to convince people that “everyone is playing by the same rules, and that the benefits of economic success are there for all our citizens.”

Who needs to be told such things?

On the flip side, Xi Jinping, president of China and head of the Chinese Communist Party stood before 3,000 of the worlds richest and most influential capitalists, preaching free trade. In the process, President Xi achieved rock star status among the elite. He delighted and comforted his audience with a quote from Dickens, “It was the worst of times. It was the best of times.” In a period of uncertainty for capitalists, the world’s most powerful communist presented himself as their champion.

“Going local” was the Davos’ way of demonstrating at least some interest in moving a measure of control from the top to the lower rungs of the social ladder in the face of the revolting hordes.

Meanwhile, 370 miles away, a “counter-summit” met in Koblenz, Germany featuring prominent insurgents. French activist, Marie Le Pen described the purpose of the meeting, as follows: “The aim is to outline the Europe of tomorrow.” “Each of us,” she said, “is strongly attached sovereignty and freedom in general.”

Amidst an avalanche of emotional claims and counter-claims, aristocrats meeting in snowy Davos and insurgents in frigid Koblenz were playing out the political theater of the next decade.

“Davos 2017: Aristocrats face the Pitchforks” was the way the Wall Street Journal put it. The Journal invited Davos attendees to feel “. . . uncomfortable parallels with the condition in which its equally well-heeled forebears found themselves in late 18th-century France or early 20th-century Russia.”

The Journal’s questions for Davos attendees going forward was whether “they continue to dismiss and deride voters who want to maintain or restore . . . borders as racist, xenophobic or even neo-fascist? Or do they at least want to try to acknowledge the legitimacy of national sentiment over globalist ideology?” It expressed the hope that Davos aristocrats might experience a less violent end than the Bourbons or the Romanovs.

This drama will play out, not only in Davos and Koblenz, but also in Sacramento, Los Altos and Turlock.   Like the messy dance of colliding galaxies, experience will deform the ideas of opposing camps until something stable emerges.

Social and political webs can be tough. Absolute monarchy took centuries to expire. Some people are still fighting the American Civil War. Davos and Koblenz provide a framework for looking at the history and future of feudal California.

Without reference Davos, the current fluid American political landscape may seem disorienting. How is it that progressives, neoconservatives and the communist officials became such fast friends? Where do the scattered reformers in every American and European political party fit in? Who are the good guys? This is post-ideological politics. Labels matter less. Experts are untrustworthy. A dancing landscape of ideas morphs unpredictably. Landing on the side of virtue sometimes looks more like a game of blindfolded darts than the product of reason.

California remains a bastion of the Davos idea. The ideas of Davos and Koblenz are playing out in the experience of Brentwood, Turlock and Watts. Feudal California is what some want to export to the rest of America. The opposite may to be happening. The new feudalism could be passing. As with the feudalism 1.0, choosing a different path only requires revolting people to say, “Enough.”