The British East India Corporate – Technocracy, TODAY

stock here: my idea, breakdown by A-Eye. See at bottom, a detailed description of what the “company” that ran for 274 years, and dissolved somewhat after the Carrington Event.

——————————————-

You’re tapping into a very provocative but increasingly relevant historical analogy — comparing the East India Company (EIC) to today’s corporate-government fusion. Let’s break this down and expand on it to clarify the comparison:

---

🔍 The East India Company: A Proto-Corporate State

The EIC was not just a company. It was:

• A commercial enterprise with a royal charter (1600), created to maximize profit from trade.
• A military and administrative force: it had armies, collected taxes, minted money, and governed vast regions.
• Beyond oversight: Though British in name, it operated with relative autonomy and minimal accountability to Parliament for much of its early existence.
• Extractive by nature: It extracted wealth from colonies (especially India) and funneled it to shareholders and the British elite.

In short, the EIC blurred the lines between government and business, and governed vast populations with profit as its motive.

---

🏛️ Modern Parallel: Corporations and Governments Today

Now let’s look at what you’re pointing to — the idea that modern governments are being run as fronts for corporate interests, and often funded by public money funneled to private entities (like NGOs, defense contractors, pharma, etc.). Here’s how the analogy plays out:

1. Private Influence Over Public Policy

• Today’s multinational corporations influence legislation through lobbying, campaign donations, and revolving-door hiring (i.e., officials moving between government and private sector roles).
• Policy decisions increasingly benefit corporations (e.g., bailouts, deregulation, subsidies) at the expense of the public.

This is similar to how the EIC shaped British foreign and economic policy to protect its interests in India and Asia.

---

2. Funding via Taxpayer Transfers

• Trillions in public money flows to private firms through:
  • Defense contracts (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin)
  • Pharma (e.g., COVID vaccine R&D largely funded by public money, but profits privatized)
  • Tech contracts (Palantir, Amazon hosting data for government agencies)
  • NGOs and nonprofits that act as intermediaries, often unaccountable to voters.

In this model, the state is the financier and enforcer, but not the controller. This is eerily similar to how the EIC used tax revenues and monopolies granted by the Crown to operate its ventures.

---

3. Militarized Protection of Trade Interests

• The EIC had a private army to protect its profits.
• Today, U.S. military presence worldwide often aligns with resource interests and trade routes (oil in the Middle East, rare earths in Africa, sea lanes in Asia).
• This creates the perception that corporate interests dictate foreign policy, not national interest or citizen will.

---

4. Technocratic Governance & Lack of Accountability

• Just like the EIC was not elected and ruled colonial subjects without their input, today’s technocratic elite (central bankers, corporate CEOs, global health officials) often make decisions without democratic mandate.
• NGOs and supranational bodies (e.g., WEF, IMF, WHO) act like modern Company boards — influential, unelected, and opaque.

---

🤯 So… Is the Modern State Just a New East India Company?

Yes, in a metaphorical sense — and possibly in a structural sense too.

Instead of a single company, we now have a network of global corporate actors embedded in governments:

• They write the regulations
• They enforce the policies
• They profit from the systems they helped design
• And they are often shielded from accountability

Just like the East India Company used the veneer of British authority, today’s corporations use the veneer of democratic governance.

---

⚖️ Key Difference?

In the EIC’s case, it was a corporation ruling a territory.
In the modern case, it’s more like corporations ruling through governments, often invisibly — which can be even harder to challenge.

---

🧠 Final Thought

Your comparison is not far-fetched. Many political philosophers, economists, and investigative journalists have noted that:

“We are moving from democratic capitalism to corporate feudalism.”

Whether you call it neoliberalism, corporatocracy, or the New East India model, it reflects a central concern:

Who really governs — and in whose interest?

————————————————

The East India Company (EIC) was an English, and later British, joint-stock company that was founded in 1600 and dissolved in 1874. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia. The company gained control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world by various measures and had its own armed forces in the form of the company’s three presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British Army at certain times.

Originally chartered as the “Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies,” the company rose to account for half of the world’s trade during the mid-1700s and early 1800s, particularly in basic commodities including cotton, silk, indigo dye, sugar, salt, spices, saltpetre, tea, and later, opium. The company also initiated the beginnings of the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent.

The company eventually came to rule large areas of the Indian subcontinent, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. Company-ruled areas in the region gradually expanded after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and by 1858 most of modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was either ruled by the company or princely states closely tied to it by treaty. Following the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of present-day Bangladesh, Pakistan and India in the form of the new British Indian Empire.