One can view neoliberalism as Trotskyism
refashioned for elite. Or "socialism for corporations" along with feudalism for everybody else. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have slogan
"neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Like Communism is supposed to be the
result of revolt of proletariat against its oppressions, Neoliberalism can be considered to be the
revolt of the elite (and first of all financial elite) against excessive level of equality that
characterized the world after WWII. Like Trotskyism in the past, it is a militant and dogmatic
faith that burns heretics and utilizes the full power of propaganda to brainwash the population.
The "Union of Corporate socialism republics" have zero tolerance for other social system
or deviations from Washington consensus. Media dogs and intelligence agencies are
unleashed on dissenters. If this does not help direct military invasion is always an option ("export
of neoliberal democracy of the tips of bayonets", so to speak). Subversive methods like color
revolutions are polished to perfection. See Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism
The key idea here is that "free market" in neoliberalism replaces the notion of "dictatorship of
proletariat". So they do not want to wait until "free market" wins in the society on its own merits.
They do not believe in Laissez-faire. Like Leninists
they want to use state to build the society in which "dictatorship of market"
happens. To enforce this society on people. This is libertarian dream of the state as "night watchman", state in neoliberal
doctrine is active in enforcing this "free market" mechanisms, despite possible resistance of the
society. Very similar to Bolshevik state of Islamic state in that.
Monte Perelin society which developed the neoliberal doctrine and served like Communist
International for neoliberalism, was deliberately structured like a congress of pre-selected and
pre-approved thinkers, allowing no dissent, and working in secrecy. They explicitly rework the
key methods of social struggle invented by Bolsheviks and Trotskyites to the their own ends.
Many subversive method used by neoliberal state to enforce the rule of neoliberalism in other
countries were first invented and tried by Communist International. Marx is probably now
spinning in his grave seeing how his teaching and methods adapted by social-democratic parties were
subverted and bastardized to serve the rich.
According to neoliberal doctrine, free maker like socialist social system just do not happen naturally: they should be built and enforced
by the "party". which in this case was constructed of bribed intellectuals and (what is even more
important) with thing tanks. And as we all know tanks is formidable weapon on a modern battlefields.
The same is true with think tanks in social battlefields. So like
Trotskyites they are constructivists long before the term became popular (neoliberalism as a
movement belong to early 30th). Nothing is left to the chance.
In other words this like Trotskyism this is an ersatz religion -- "market uber
alles" religion. Market under neoliberal doctrine does not need any justification. It is a
ultimate deity that judge mere mortals and requires compliance, achieved by spilling blood, if
necessary.
Much like the idea of communism is a deity for Bolsheviks. Kind of heaven on the earth. In this
sense this is market fundamentalism which is a lot in common with Islamic Fundamentalism. Market
is the heaven on earth for neoliberals. No matter what the actual reality is.
Like Trotskyites they were militant faction which wanted to seize
the power but whatever means possible. And they want to forcefully destroy all alternatives
including first of all socialism. Their attitude toward socialism is the exact morrow of Trotskyites
view about capitalism -- they believe that socialism belong to the dustbin of history, and if it
does not want to die "naturally" it is OK to help him to go to the grave. 1973 Chilean coup d'état
against
President
Salvador Allende, is a perfect example of their ideology in action. color revolution are
another. This is how Lenin would force the revolution. They just uses CIA instead of terrorist
underground forces used by Bolsheviks (in case of Bolsheviks often cooperating with anarchist
military faction -- so called 'boeviks").
There is even some uneasy alliance of islamist radicals Western intelligence agencies and neoliberal
NGO in which neoliberal try to use islamist to achieve their goals. The same lack of
principles and amorality was typical for Bolsheviks. In is important to understand that
despite scholarly camouflage key neoliberal figures such as Milton Friedman were actually criminals.
Minton Friedman hands were up to the elbow in blood of innocent victims due to
killing many Chileans during
Pinochet coup (objective view is our view of people which we do not like, so communists probably
provided the most biting critique of neoliberalism and neoliberals ;-) :
In 1975, the New York Times accurately labeled him “the guiding light of the junta’s
economic policy” (21 September 1975). The CIA funded a 300-page Friedmanite blueprint given to
the leaders of the junta in preparation for the coup. In March 1975 Friedman himself,
accompanied by his U of C cohort Arnold Harberger, flew to Chile for high-level talks with the
regime to outline the economic “shock treatment” that led to the mass starvation of those who
had survived the initial phase of bloodletting.
So the world revolution in Trotskyite doctrine is simply replaced by "world neoliberal revolution
by what ever means possible". Criminal actions are OK. Like with Trotskyism "the goal
justifies the means".
Another interesting question is why those people were help-bent of anti-communism, were so
adamantly against socialism? One explanation is that most of them were from Austrian aristocracy
circles. Another is that in their view (and first of all Hayek) market is a kind of natural "supercomputer" that
can provide solutions to all world problems that no government can do. But, at the same time being closet
neo-Trotskyites they advocate military coups and killing of dissenters to achieve their goals.
Their "utilitarian view" of the legitimacy of government, also extents to science. Like for
Trotskyites with their bogus concept of "proletarian science", the science in their worldview is
useful only to the extent it help to built neoliberalism. So there is scientific theories and
scientists which needs to be financially supported and promoted and the scientific theories and scientists that needs to
be suppressed and ostracized. Kind of new Lysenkoism.
That sound profoundly anti-democratic and that's completely true. Neoliberals do not care
about democracy. They care only about "free market" -- thier deity like communists cared
obly about Communism -- their deity. And both are ready to commit any crimes to achieve their goals. In other words they are a new type of a
dangerous totalitarian sect. and the brand of Totalitarism they promote was called by Wolin "Inverted
Totalitarism". Their approach smells with Lysenkoism. And that' true -- neoliberal practice is
very close to practice of Lysenkoism, especially in the field of economics: they occupied all
commanding positions in economic departments of universities and forcefully suppress any dissent.
The only difference is that they use the power of state just for ostracism and isolation. They do
not send "non-conforming" scientists to GULAG like Bolsheviks did. But they introduce a new
interesting nuance: as the science became a "marketplace of ideas", under neoliberalism you can just
buy the scientist you like on the market. Education also needs to be restructured as market.
Which already happened in the USA.
So we really are talking about neoliberal revolution in the USA, which destroyed the New Deal
capitalism by mercilessly destroying all the relevant law. You are liming in new brave neoliberal
world now.
We can think about neoliberalism employing typical Trotskyite methods of "gain power first"
implement neoliberal policies later. In a way, neoliberalism is the second after Bolshevism social
model that is totally artificially constructed and explicitly planned to be enforced on unsuspecting
people via subversive actions of a totalitarian sect. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of the
Communist Party nomenklatura, neoliberalism is dictatorship of financial oligarchy. Both
neoliberalism and Bolshevism despise democracy and need a strong state which implements neoliberal
policies "from above" -- reforming the society despite the wishes of population (exactly like
bolshevism did it in the USSR space and later in Eastern Europe).
This symbiosis of strong state (in a form of "national security state" and super
powerful intelligence agencies -- often called "the deep state") and
corporation via the rule of financial oligarchy makes neoliberalism a modern flavor of
corporatism. Inverted totalitarism as Sheldon Wolin called it. Like bolshevism neoliberalism relies of power of propaganda (first of all via think
tanks -- its ingenious invention) as well as classic methods used by Bolsheviks such as
indoctrination via economics courses at university economics departments and constant
pro-neoliberal propaganda in major MSM owned and operated by large corporations.
Up to 2000 in the USA standard of living and employment level was maintained (partially via
computer revolution, partially via "expropriation" of resources and capital at xUSSR space),
although there are limits to that and at some point self-destruction process inevitably starts
and the neoliberal society gradually slips into secular stagnation, somewhat similar to Brezhnev's
stagnation period in the USSR. In the USA is characterized by the loss of jobs and
manufacturing to outsourcing, as well as degeneration of neoliberal elite (matching if not exceeding
the degeneration of neoliberal elite). Which at the end created conditions for the rise
to power of Trump and his team of "bastard neoliberals" (neoliberalism without neoliberal
globalization, somewhat similar to Stalin's idea of 'socialism ins single country").
Like Trotskyism in the past (with their slogan of "World revolution" borrowed by neoliberalism) neoliberals in general and neocons in particular (as
"neoliberals with
the gun") are hell-bent of creating Global Neoliberal empire. Killing millions people in the process.
And destroying the well-being of the majorly of people in their host country (the USA in case of
neoliberals, the Russian empire -- USSR -- in case of Trotskyites and later Bolsheviks ).
For them
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’"
as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it. This Nietzschean-style complete disregard of
common people is probably the most common feature between those two "man-eater" class ideologies.
Those Nietzschean Ubermensch like classic psychopaths just do not have compassion for other people.
They are objects, tools for them. Actually you learn a lot about neoliberals by studying
psychopath and sociopath behaviour, especially female sociopath. The percent of sociopaths in
the society is by various estimate is over 5% which considerably exceeds the number of people
required for forming the elite or the top 1% of neoliberal society.
Like Marxism before, neoliberalism provides its own ethics and its own rationality. It enforces a new encompassing
"economic rationalism" (aka
economism) , which should displace old, "outdated"
and more humane rationality of New Deal capitalism.
The ethics of neoliberalism, or "Neoliberal rationality", is heavily tilted toward
viewing people as "homo economicus". Like Marxism (and, by extension, Trotskyism
and Bolshevism/Stalinism ) it "articulates crucial elements of
the language, practice and subjectivity
according to a specific image of the economics." Like Trotskyism before it directly assaults the
idea of democratic governance and the rule of the law proving perverted rationality, elements
of which are erringly similar to the
ideas of "vanguard", "proletarian justice", " journalists
as solders of the Party" and, especially, "Permanent Revolution".
It
rejects the idea of social solidarity (emphasizing it for Undermensch "individual responsibility"
including "who does not work, should not eat") replacing it, like Marxism before,
with the idea of class solidarity (The members of transnational financial elite unite"). They also pervert the idea of the rule of the
law, which animated so much of modernity, hollowing out democratic practices
and institutions while at the same time catalyzing radical, brutal (as in neo-feudal) forms of the elite dominance,
promoting Nietzsche separation of mankind into two caste: Undermensch ("despicables" in Hillary
Clinton words) and Ubermensch ("creative class"). In a way neoliberalism is
socialism for rich and feudalism for poor.
Like Marxism before it, neoliberalism wear the mantle of inevitability. As Bruce
Wilder noted in his post on Crooked Timber blog (11.16.16 at 10:07 pm
30):
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy
consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability.
Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political
agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and
financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.
For example, instead of permanent revolution we have
permanent democratization
via color revolutions and military invasions for the expansion of neoliberal
empire.. With the same fake idea of creating a global neoliberal empire
which will make everybody happy and prosperous.
While this is never advertized (and actually the whole term "neoliberalism" is kind of
"hidden" from the population and its discussion is a taboo in neoliberal MSM), implicitly Neoliberalism
adopted a considerable part of Trotskyism doctrine and even bigger part of its practice, especially
foreign policy practice. Like KGB in the USSR, CIA became presidents praetorian guard (which
occasionally revolt, see JFK assassination).
All-in-all like Logos noted this is yet another stunning
"economic-political" utopia with the level of economic determinism even more ambitious than that of
Marx... But what is important to understand is that this doctrine incorporates significant parts of
Trotskyism in pretty innovating, unobvious way. Thus, Marx famous quote "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" is fully applicable
here: instead of revolt of proletariat which Marxists expected we got the revolt of financial oligarchy.
And this revolt led to the formation of the powerful Transnational Elite International (with Congresses
in Basel) instead of Communist International (with Congresses in Moscow).
Both Trotsky and Marx are probably
rolling in their graves seeing such a wicked mutation of their beloved political ideology.
Neoliberalism is also an example of emergence of ideologies, not from their persuasive power or inner
logic, but from the private interests of the ruling elite. Political pressure
and money created the situation in which intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail much like Catholicism
prevailed during Dark Ages in Europe. In a way, this is return to Dark Ages on a new level. Hopefully
this period will not last as long. But as there is no countervailing force on the horizon, only
the major change in economic conditions, such as end of cheap oil can lead to demise of
neoliberalism.
Among the ideas that neoliberalism borrowed from Trotskyism via renegades
Trotskyites turned neoconservatives (and for all practical purposes
Neoconservatism is just neoliberalism with a gun) such as James Burnham we
can mention the following:
Use of violence for the spread of the ideology. The idea of Permanent revolution to bring to power the new hegemonic class
in all countries of the globe and create a new global neoliberal empire is direct borrowing from
Trotskyism and was promoted by Jewish neocons, who were former Trotskyites. In neoliberalism
this takes that form of "export of democracy" as the method of achieving and maintaining world dominance
of globalist elite (which in its role of hegemonic class replaces proletariat used in Trotskyism):
The idea of
Permanent
Revolution formulated by Trotsky in 1905 is the defining feature of both Trotskyism and
neoliberalism. Like Bolshevism/Troskism neoliberalism is militat idology, especially in
the fvour which in the USA is called Neoconservatism (neoliberals with the gun -- which
advocate famous al Capine motto - "You Can Get Much Further with a Kind Word and a Gun than
with a Kind Word Alone") Trotsky
argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of
the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They
would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in
Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world.
As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid, and socialism could develop
worldwide. In neoliberalism the role of Russia is replaced by the USA. And it is the US
elite which asks compradors elite in other countries to come to the US elite aid to establish
global neoliberal regime.
Like Trotskyism, neoliberalism consider wars to impose a liberal-democratic society on
weaker countries (which in modern times are countries without nuclear weapons) which cannot give
a fight to Western armies are inherently just ("regime change" mentality).
So both ideologies are
ready to bring revolution to new countries on the tips of (USA in case of
neoliberalism) bayonets.
A totalitarian vision for a world-encompassing monolithic
global state governed by an ideologically charged "vanguard". One single state (Soviet Russia)
in case of Trotskyism, and the USA in case of neoliberalism is assigned the place of "holy country"
and the leader of this country has special privileges not unlike Rome Pope in Catholicism
Creation and maintenance of the illusion of "immanent threat" from powerful enemies for brainwashing
the population (National Security
State instead of "Dictatorship
of proletariat"). The idea (and reality) of "dictatorship of the financial oligarchy" replaces the concept of
"dictatorship of proletariat".
Purges of dissent via neo-McCarthyism tactics. It also rely on repression of
dissidents but uses for this purpose more indirect forms such as ostracism (especially in
academia) instead of physical repression. It relied of demobilization of masses and turning them
atomized and obedient consumers instead of mobilization of masses under Trotskyism. That's
why it was called by Wolin "inverted totalitarism".
Implicit denial of the idea of "free press". The press is converted into
neoliberal propaganda machine and journalists, writers, etc are viewed as "the solders of the
ideology"
who should advance neoliberalism. That's what we saw during the recent
Presidential elections. This is a direct copy of Bolsheviks playbook. It was aptly demonstrate during 2016 Presidential elections, where all MSM,
especially CNN, ABC and MSNBC serves as attack dogs on Hillary Clinton campaign, not even
pretending having an impartial position like Pravda used to pretend. Compete,
blatant disregard of truth if it does not fit neoliberal goals. Perversion of truth to the extent
that Pravda journalists can be viewed as paragons of objectivity (recent Presidential campaign of
2016 provides plenty of examples)
The mantle of inevitability (famous
TINA statement of Margaret
Thatcher is an apt demonstration of this) As Bruce Wilder noted in his post on Crooked
Timber blog (11.16.16 at 10:07 pm
30):
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy
consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt
Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political
agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and
financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.
The study of neoclassical economics as the key method of indoctrination of people with
economists as a class of well paid priests of neoliberal ideology, masking political
essence of neoliberalism under
special jargon and
mathiness.
Brainwashing via education became the primary tool of indoctrination.
Like Marxism in the USSR, neoliberalism completely
control "social sciences" with economic department of most US universities populated by adherents
of this doctrine. The control is more indirect via allocation of funds, but no less
pervasive, then in USSR.
"Economists are wheeled out to comment on all sorts of public policy issues:
in the news, on the TV, online and so forth. The deference to economic expertise is something that
permeates our politics and, through the use of jargon, maths and statistics, serves to exclude non-expert
citizens from conversations about issues that often have a direct impact on their lives. As you imply,
it is something like an ancient priesthood. In fact, in an earlier draft of the book we made a comparison
to ancient medical texts, which were only written in Latin and so created a huge asymmetry between
experts and non-experts, which could have awful consequences for the latter. In some senses economics
in modern times goes even further than this, because it affects policy on everything from incomes
and jobs to healthcare and the environment. " ... "I concur with in that I have concluded that
maybe 60-80% of formal economic language is ideology – it pretty naturally follows that there
will be some attempt to indoctrinate those who wish to speak the language. I guess the natural
place to start is to ask you for a flavour of what this indoctrination looks like and then maybe we will move on to what its
purposes are and what ends it serves. "
The Econocracy An Interview with Cahal Mora naked capitalism
The concept of the
"new class" (often called) creative class ) that reminds Neitean concept of Ubermetsch.
This managerial class which is similar to Soviet
nomenklatura. Rejection of
Christianity and
the idea of human solidarity. Like was the case in the USSR, it places
the control of the economy in comparatively few hands; Neoliberal nomenklatura is very
similar to Soviet nomenklatura. In both cases their position in social hierarchy by-and-large is
determined by the position the individual has in government or private industry. Loss of
the position means substantial downgrade in neoliberal social hierarchy. This leads to the
same sick effects and gradual degeneration, and that might be
neoliberalism's Achilles
heel which we saw in action in 2008.
War on and brutal suppression of organized labor.
While in Soviet Russia organized labor was emasculated and trade unions became part of government
apparatus, under neoliberalism they are simply decimated. It "atomize" individual workers
presenting them as goods on the "labor market" controlled by large corporations ( via the myth of
human capital )(
the myth of human capital )
The pseudoscientific ‘free-market’ (why not "fair"?) theory which replaces Marxist political economy and provides
a pseudo-scientific justification for the greed and poverty endemic to the system.
Set of myths such as on
Free Trade,
Invisible Hand Hypothesis,
Rational expectations scam,
Shareholder value scam, The fact that the main beneficiaries are the global mega-corporations and
major western powers (G7) is carefully hidden behind fake rhetoric, which is
not unlike the rhetoric of the Communist Party of the USSR.
Scapegoating and victimization of
poor . Scapegoating and victimization of poor as new Untermensch. This is a part of
Randism and is closely related to glorification of the "creative class". Treatment of working class as second rate citizens, not unlike Marxists treated peasantry
in the past. Only new "creative class" vanguard are first class citizens under the
neoliberal, much like proletariat was in Marxism. In both cases this is just a smoke screen of
the rule of oligarchy, in case on Marxism of Party oligarchy, in case of neoliberal -- financial
oligarchy. Neoliberalism rejects the idea of social solidarity and in this sense is
distinctly anti-Christian ideology. Much like Marxism was. See
Neoliberalism and Christianity
Rejection of the normal interpretation of the rule of the law and the idea of "neoliberal
justice" (tough justice for Untermensch
only). See, for example a Crooked timber comment:
Neoliberals destroy the notion of social justice and pervert the notion
of the “rule of the law”. See, for example, The Neo-Liberal State
by Raymond Plant
…social justice is incompatible with the rule of law because its
demands cannot be embodied in general and impartial rules; and rights
have to be the rights to non-interference rather than understood in
terms of claims to resources because rules against interference can be
understood in general terms whereas rights to resources cannot. There
is no such thing as a substantive common good for the state to pursue
and for the law to embody and thus the political pursuit of something
like social justice or a greater sense of solidarity and community
lies outside the rule of law.
… … …
…But surely, it might be argued, a nomocratic state and its laws have
to
acknowledge some set of goals. It cannot be impartial or indifferent
to all goals.
Law cannot be pointless. It cannot be totally non-instrumental. It has
to facilitate
the achievement of some goals. If this is recognized, it might be
argued, it will
modify the sharpness of the distinction between a nomocratic and
telocratic state,
between a civil association and an enterprise association.
IMHO for neoliberals social justice and the rule of law is applicable
only to Untermensch. For Ubermensch (aka “creative class”) it undermines
their individual freedom and thus they need to be above the law.
To ensure their freedom and cut “unnecessary and undesirable
interference” of the society in their creative activities the role of the
state should be limited to safeguarding the free market as the playground
for their “creativity” (note “free” as in “free ride”, not “fair”).
Cult of GDP. Like Marxism, neoliberalism on the one hand this reduces individuals to statistics
contained within aggregate economic performance. It professes that GDP growth is the ultimate goal of any society. This is very similar to the
USSR cult of gross national product. Another
paradox of
neoliberalism is
it
relies upon
universal
quantification
and comparison
which is completely perverted much like in the USSR central planning system.
And it produces the same dismal results: workers, job-seekers and public
services of every kind are subject to a
pettifogging,
stifling regime
of assessment of
non-relevant metrics. In the job periodic assessments (performance
reviews) are formally used to
identify the
winners and
punish the
losers, or,
non-conformists. In
reality, they dramatically increase the power of management, distort anything converting jobs into variant of the USSR "fake
metrics, fake performance, fake promotions" troika. The
doctrine that
Von Mises
proposed to
free us from the
bureaucratic
nightmare of
central planning
has instead
re-created a new
nightmare just on a different level of sophistication and perversion of
basic human rationality,
The idea of the single party system, with the ruling party serves as the vanguard of the hegemonic
neoliberal class (top 1%) and represents only its interests. Capture by neoliberals of
Democratic Party under Clinton essentially created one-party system in the USA, as both
parties from this point represent just different factions of the same neoliberal party. Unlike Bolsheviks one party system,
this two party system creates an illusion of multi-party system and sometimes
electorate manages to promote the candidate, which is not approved by establishment as happened
with Sanders and Trump in recent 2016 Presidential election. While Democratic Party managed to
suppress Sanders as was expected, Trump got the nomination and was elected the President. That does not means that Trump will
not be co-opted after the election by "mainstream" Republicans ("hard core neoliberals") or that
Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") can change its anti working people stance (and
systematic betrayal of its interests) after disastrous run of Hillary Clinton. interests.
Messianic zeal and hate for the "old order" (The New Deal in case of the USA). Open desire to dismantle
and privatize all the mechanisms of redistribution of income, including (in the USA) Social Security
and Medicare. Like Trotskyites, Neoliberals are inherently hostile to competing non-liberal societies
- which they see not simply as different, but as wrong. That include nationalistic regimes (Hussein,
Kaddafi), resource nationalists (Putin, Erdogan, Chavez) as well as theocracies (Iran,
North Korea, with the notable exception of Israelis and Saudis (as well as several other Gulf monarchies, which
due to oil deals are considered to be kosher)
The idea of artificial creation of the "revolutionary situation" for overthrow of "unfriendly" regimes
( via color revolution methods); role of students
in such a coup d'états. Neoliberal compradors
(supported by State Department), selected western embassies and NGO instead of communist
parties functionaries as the fifth column inside the societies. Like Marxism, neoliberalism tries to weaken, if not abolish, nation states replacing state
sovereignty with international organizations and treaties dominance (for weaker countries typically using debt
slavery to IMF and World bank). Neoliberalism reflect the nature of global capitalism as a hegemonic
transnational phenomenon. By deemphasizing the role of the nation-state in the global economy and
increasing the significance of transnational production and the rise of a transnational elite and
the transnational corporations neoliberalism realizes dreams of Marx in a very perverted form.
The ideas of truth as "a class truth"; neoliberals reject the idea that there are any
external moral values. They feel that these should be result of 'market of opinions' and the truth
is the one that market favors.
Use of academic science and "think tanks" for brainwashing of the population.
Neoliberals fully adopted the Bolsheviks practice of creating powerful intellectual centers
for promoting the ideology. They also captured all the economics department in major
universities.
Economic fetishism. Neoliberals see the market as a semi-sacred element of human civilization.
They want to impose global market that favors transnational corporations. Everything should be profitable
and run as a market. Including labor market. The idea of employability is characteristically
neoliberal. It means that neoliberals see it as a moral duty of human beings, to arrange their
lives to maximize their value on the labor market. Paying for plastic surgery to improve employability
(almost entirely by women) is a typical neoliberal phenomenon -- one that would surprise Adam Smith.
Reliance on international organizations to bully countries into submission (remember
Communist International (aka
Comintern) and its network of spies and Communist Parties all over the world). The global financial
institutions are indeed the key bastion of neoliberal ideology, and they can bully most of poor countries
into adopting neoliberal policies. Especially in time of crisis, which can be iether natural or
artificially created. The global financial institutions are the key instrument of US
foreign policy
- and an important element of the quasi-imperial power, it is the United States. At the same time
international institutions that which does fully correspond to the idea of the USA as the global
hegemonic power, such as UN, are denigrated and ignored if their option differs from the opinion
of the State Department on particular matter. Neoliberalism advocates the globalized unity of elites ( hierarchy
to be exact under benevolent guidance of the US elite). At the same time conditions of population
of countries with "globalized" elite go downhill and internal social protection mechanisms are dismantled.
That creates resistance to globalism and neoliberalism that recently were
demonstrated in Greece and Britain (Brexit).
Finally, neoliberalism like Marxism in the past has become strongly associated with a specific
culture (the US culture, or Anglo-Saxon culture in more general terms) and a specific language (English).
Like Marxism, as an ideology,
Neoliberalism became tied to specific culture or language. Theoretically any global language would
suit, and it can be Esperanto. But in reality the English language, neoliberal policies, and pro-American
foreign policy is a "package deal" for neoliberals and its fifth column supporters outside G7; this
was especially true in Central and Eastern Europe. Kind of Neoliberal International (they call it
"Washington Obcom" in Eastern Europe). That does not exclude corporatism-style jingoism, chauvinism,
flag-waving and foreigner-bashing in the USA and other G7 countries. Tony Blair is probably the best
example of this political mentality:
Don't tell me that a country with our history and heritage, that today boasts six of the top ten
businesses in the whole of Europe, with London the top business city in Europe, that is a world
leader in technology and communication and the businesses of the future, that under us has overtaken
France and Italy to become the fourth largest economy in the world, that has the language of the
new economy, more brilliant artists, actors and directors than any comparable country in the world,
some of the best scientists and inventors in the world, the best armed forces in the world, the
best teachers and doctors and nurses, the best people any nation could wish for.
Don't tell me with all that going for us that we do not have the spirit to meet all the challenges
before us.
This "capitalists counteroffensive" or "revolt of the elite" was pioneered in Britain,
where Margaret Thatcher was elected leader of the Tory Party in 1975 and put into real shape by Ronald
Reagan in 1981-1989 (Reaganomics).
Margaret Thatcher victory was the first election of neoliberal ideologue (Pinochet came to power via
supported by the USA military coupe de tat). Both Thatcher and Reagan mounted a full-scale counterattack
against the (already weakened and fossilized) unions. In GB the miners were the most important target.
In USA traffic controllers. In both cases they managed to broke the back of trade unions. Since 1985
union membership in the USA has halved.
Privatizing nationalized industries and public services fragments large bargaining units formed of
well organized public-sector workers, creating conditions in which wages can be driven down in the competition
for franchises and contracts. This most important side effect of privatization was dramatic redistribution
of wealth to the top layer of financial and managerial elite (corporate rich).
Neoliberalism gradually gained strength since probably late 50th with free-market theorists like
Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as influential ideologues. Ann Rand also made an important contribution
with her "greed is good" philosophy of positivism. Still many economists and policy-makers favored a
‘mixed economy’ with high levels of state intervention and public spending. That changed in the 1970s
when the state capitalism run into rocks. In a way rise of Neoliberalism was the elite response to the
Long Recession of 1973-1992: they launched a class war of the global rich against the rest. Shrinking
markets dictated the necessity of cutting costs by sacking workers and driving down wages. So the key
program was to reverse the gains made by the US lower and middle class since 1945 and it needed an ideological
justification. Neoliberalism neatly fitted the bill. With outsourcing, the global ‘race to the bottom’
became a permanent feature of a new economic order.
At 1980th it became clear that the age of national economies and ‘autarkic’ (self-contained) blocs
like the USSR block ended as they will never be able to overcome the technological and standard of living
gap with the major Western economies. This inability to match the level of standard of living of western
countries doomed communist ideology, as it has in the center the thesis that as a superior economic
system it should match and exceed the economic level achieved by capitalist countries. Collapse of the
USSR in 1991 (in which KGB elite played the role of Trojan horse of the West) was a real triumph of
neoliberalism and signified a beginning of a new age in which the global economy was dominated by international
banks and multinational corporations operating with little or sometimes completely outside the control
of nation-states.
The rise of neoliberalism can be measured by the rise of the financial and industrial mega-corporations.
For example, US direct investment overseas rose from $11 billion in 1950 to $133 billion in 1976. The
long-term borrowing of US corporations increased from 87% of their share value in 1955 to 181% in 1970.
The foreign currency operations of West European banks, to take another example, increased from $25
billion in 1968 to $200 billion in 1974. The combined debt of the 74 less-developed countries jumped
from $39 billion in 1965 to $119 billion in 1974. These quantitative changes during the "Great Boom"
reached a tipping point in the 1970s. Global corporations by then had come to overshadow the nation-states.
The effect was to impose a relentless pressure on national elites to increase the exploitation of ‘their
own’ working class. High wages became a facto that deters new investment and labor arbitrage jumped
in full swing. Taxes on business to pay for public services or welfare payments became undesirable.
As well as laws designed to make workplaces safe, limit working hours, or guarantee maternity leave.
While from purely theoretic perspective the ‘free-market’ theory espoused by neoliberal academics, journalists,
politicians, bankers, and ‘entrepreneurs’ is compete pseudoscientific Lysenkoism-style doctrine, it
became very popular, dominant ideology of the last decade of XX century. It provides a pseudo-scientific
justification for the greed, poverty, as well as economic crisis endemic to the system. It also justified
high level if inequality of the political and business elite an a normal state of human society. In
this sense, neoliberalism became an official ideology of the modern ruling elite.
Like Marxism before neoliberalism provides its own ethics and its own rationality. It enforces a new encompassing
"economic rationalism", which should displace old, "outdated"
and more humane rationality of liberal capitalism.
"Neoliberal rationality" is heavily tilted toward
viewing the people as "homo economicus". This new neoliberal rationality " articulates crucial elements of
the language, practice and subjectivity
‘according to a specific image of the economic" In so doing neo-liberalism like
Marxism before it directly assaults
the democratic imaginary that animated so much of modernity, hollowing out liberal democratic practices
and institutions while at the same time catalyzing radical, brutal forces of the political spectrum.
In the book
Undoing the Demos Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution Professor Wendy Brown described this "neoliberal rationality" phenomenon and actually shows how close
it is to the rationality which governed communism parties of the USSR and Eastern Block.
"... I treat neoliberalism as a governing rationality through which everything is "economized" and in a very specific way: human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field of activity is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person, business, or state) is governed as a firm. Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending commodification and monetization everywhere-that's the old Marxist depiction of capital's transformation of everyday life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices. Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future value. ..."
"... The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets, for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets. ..."
"... with the neoliberal revolution that homo politicus is
finally vanquished as a fundamental feature of being human and of democracy. Democracy requires that
citizens be modestly oriented toward self-rule, not simply value enhancement, and that we understand
our freedom as resting in such self-rule, not simply in market conduct. When this dimension of being
human is extinguished, it takes with it the necessary energies, practices, and culture of democracy,
as well as its very intelligibility. ..."
"... For most Marxists, neoliberalism emerges in the 1970s in response to capitalism's falling rate
of profit; the shift of global economic gravity to OPEC, Asia, and other sites outside the West;
and the dilution of class power generated by unions, redistributive welfare states, large and lazy
corporations, and the expectations generated by educated democracies. From this perspective, neoliberalism
is simply capitalism on steroids: a state and IMF-backed consolidation of class power aimed at releasing
capital from regulatory and national constraints, and defanging all forms of popular solidarities,
especially labor. ..."
"... The grains of truth in this analysis don't get at the fundamental transformation of social, cultural,
and individual life brought about by neoliberal reason. They don't get at the ways that public institutions
and services have not merely been outsourced but thoroughly recast as private goods for individual
investment or consumption. And they don't get at the wholesale remaking of workplaces, schools, social
life, and individuals. For that story, one has to track the dissemination of neoliberal economization
through neoliberalism as a governing form of reason, not just a power grab by capital. There are
many vehicles of this dissemination -- law, culture, and above all, the novel political-administrative
form we have come to call governance. It is through governance practices that business models and
metrics come to irrigate every crevice of society, circulating from investment banks to schools,
from corporations to universities, from public agencies to the individual. It is through the replacement
of democratic terms of law, participation, and justice with idioms of benchmarks, objectives, and
buy-ins that governance dismantles democratic life while appearing only to instill it with "best
practices." ..."
"... Progressives generally disparage Citizens United for having flooded
the American electoral process with corporate money on the basis of tortured First Amendment reasoning
that treats corporations as persons. However, a careful reading of the majority decision also reveals
precisely the thoroughgoing economization of the terms and practices of democracy we have been talking
about. In the majority opinion, electoral campaigns are cast as "political marketplaces," just as
ideas are cast as freely circulating in a market where the only potential interference arises from
restrictions on producers and consumers of ideas-who may speak and who may listen or judge. Thus,
Justice Kennedy's insistence on the fundamental neoliberal principle that these marketplaces should
be unregulated paves the way for overturning a century of campaign finance law aimed at modestly
restricting the power of money in politics. Moreover, in the decision, political speech itself is
rendered as a kind of capital right, functioning largely to advance the position of its bearer, whether
that bearer is human capital, corporate capital, or finance capital. This understanding of political
speech replaces the idea of democratic political speech as a vital (if potentially monopolizable
and corruptible) medium for public deliberation and persuasion. ..."
"... My point was that democracy is really reduced to a whisper
in the Euro-Atlantic nations today. Even Alan Greenspan says that elections don't much matter much
because, "thanks to globalization . . . the world is governed by market forces," not elected representatives.
..."
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept
its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook
the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person!
We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned
in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy
lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their
imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of
his needs alone: consumption.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the
majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies
which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they
reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.
A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes
its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries
to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing
power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken
on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which
tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like
the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately understood outside
of their underlying context, which connects them together, into a broader narrative ! the actual
history of our time . History makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic
motivations cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so that the
most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts about those international
events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented (via the
links that will be provided here), up till the present moment ! the current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S. federal government and
press
, but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance from its many vassal (subordinate)
aristocracies around the world (popularly called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international
resistance presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which is controlled
by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The MIC is responding to the demands
of its aristocratic master. This response largely drives international events today (which countries
get invaded, which ones get overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because
theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC. The MIC is their collective arm, and their
collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's
fist, around the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of
the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S.
government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S.
armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S.
government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly as their "policeman
to the world," but also indirectly (by that means) as a global protection-racket that keeps
their many subordinate aristocracies in line, under their control ! and that threatens those foreign
aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists
the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced against the U.S., not even after
it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S.
aristocracy ! America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents . The links document this,
and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control of the world by
America's billionaire-class ! into the direction of ultimately replacing the U.S. Empire, by
increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical
control of one aristocracy over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining the one global
imperial power ! or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century
passed and it will be true for the century to come." To America's aristocrats, all other nations
than the U.S. are "dispensable." All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset,
both for the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise. Vassals must
pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money, to the master, in order
to be safe ! to retain their existing power, to exploit their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of
finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been central to the operation of this hierarchical
imperial system, but is now being increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances
are breaking up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed and
cemented to replace the imperial system ! replace it by a system without any clear center
of global power, in the world that we're moving into. Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's
chief weapon to impose its will against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming
the chief locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the MIC fails (such as
in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic sanctions rise to become the essential
tool of the imperial masters. We are increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're
entering the backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede
and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been
only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954;
it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's
President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept
them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order ! Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine"
, and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law right of self-determination of peoples (though
he recognized that right in Catalonia and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's
"sovereignty" over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans by
the Soviet dictator ! America's enemy ! in 1954, during the Soviet era, when America opposed,
instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where
America imposed dictatorships even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons
who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government
of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans
(his own Administration's paid far-right Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what Crimeans (traditionally
a part of Russia) might ! and did ! want. America's vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to
rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive rounds of economic sanctions against
Russia, by the U.S. government
and its
vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this had been a coup and no authentic
'democratic revolution' such as the Western press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept
quiet about it ! a secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though the public don't.) The
great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices"
and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington,
but instead Trump signed it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage
! the Obama stage ! of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that U.S. President George
Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under Obama, finally escalated
into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of
finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear weapons near and on
Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia ! preparations that the Russian people know about
and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western press, and therefore only very few
Westerners are aware that their own governments have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online, by a few 'alternative
news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes
unfortunately many sites that are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are ! and that latter type
aren't being referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to on
this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other nations to separate
themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead
their own alliances with one-another, so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic
(if not also military) aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in
other countries & kill people under guise of human rights concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine
President Rodrigo Duterte explaining why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements
and condemnations regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such as
his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West ! in the Western 'democracies'.
It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned. So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire,
you're not supposed to be reading this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this
article is being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break their
existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news ! 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type, such as this). You'll
see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia. The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media
is: report what happened, only on the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened
! never expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian edition, dated September
25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war on drugs" . The 'news'-story,
which was featured inside not just the Asian but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine
President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed Duterte as a far-right demagogue
who was giving his nation's police free reign to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor.
On 17 July 2017, China's Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines'
Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" , and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia
Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29 showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide
approved the way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent were
undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's performance. Duterte,
who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously,
it's not likely that the TIME cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's
billionaires are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin , because he always
scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like finding that confirmed, and certainly
don't want to report it. Polling is routinely done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings
of approval/disapproval of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about this, or else that
Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is a mainstream Western
publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue a study,
"Is Putin's
Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results of their own poll of Russians, which
was designed to tap into whether such fear exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian
polls, but concluded that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing words were: "Our
results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence of a widespread opposition movement
to Putin is not that Russians are afraid to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in
fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown by 'democratic revolutions'
(which usually is done by the U.S. government to overthrow democratically elected Presidents ! such
as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against
Putin, and against Duterte ! not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always claims)
have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have been used instead, but those
techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S.
public to support what the government has done ! the U.S. government's international crime, which
is never prosecuted. Lying 'news'media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces only tepid support (support
that's usually below the level of that of the governments the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never
score above 80% except when they order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners,
such as happened when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60% .
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not as conservative --
not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to be, he is
fascist ; just not enough to satisfy them (and
their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular
largely because their 'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad !
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His fascism on domestic affairs
is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media, which appear to be doing all they can to get
him replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism
of the U.S. aristocracy itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their
secret, of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy has
almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,
and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic government power.
It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the correct definition, every President since
at least Herbert Hoover has been fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise the Trump regime
is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium it confers, making it easier for vassal
states to begin to jump ship. The claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might
confer a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance of the
yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised by the yankee regime to achieve
its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic public as it has
controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it clear it wanted to control
the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands
did not have a USA ambassador for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there
should be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump does not hold her
hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly during the 50s, business
-- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old Detroit auto industry) -- and government
(including the MIC) were closely integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It
was considered by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state of affairs.
Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that since FDR was effectively
a dictator during World War II, that therefore the Democratic Party represented despotism ever
since FDR (or maybe ever since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not so sure about that: if
it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and beneficent despotism. However, it is evident
that there was a fascist skein running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout
the 20th Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and anti communist, it of
course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity, the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians, it was not racist in
the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very hesitant in persecuting jews, for example.
Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed
in their hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what nowadays fascism is,
our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true fascist btw, and it's
National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the nature of the Power
is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it might be problematic in
its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia, deep state, and etc.
They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews, BUT their agenda would be different. They
would not be hateful to Iran, Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be different from Jewish
obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be very anti-Russian BUT
for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat' around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But Hitler had Rohm wiped
out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's piggish ANC is also
'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants. But black 'fascists' want something different
from what white 'fascists' wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what is going on, we have
to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Don't worry about Prez Trump as the signing of the sanctions bill and the firing of Bannon
show, he is getting his thinking "right."
Even if the Dems take both houses of Congress in 2018, they won't impeach Trump because they
would lose their chief justification for fund-raising and they would have no "easy to beat opponent"
in 2020 or 2024.
"Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator
Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. "
Sure, sure from 1783 to 1954, there were many hundreds years!
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word,
"aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs
in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that
"plutarch" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi." I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory,
whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will.
They also ! through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal
states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket.
It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for
economics to resign.
After obeisance has been restored ! and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually ! investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability,
and yield spreads return to their usual level.
That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look
at the sickening standing ovations given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine private monopolies with
the Federal Government under a President like him: one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers
who opposed his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage the reader, it lacks reasonable
solutions to its problems presented. One solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated
MRI's, advanced technology, and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential
political candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy, narcissism,
insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come from those who intend to hide these
traits. The greatest evidence for the likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort
those who would be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a rather shadowy figure who describes himself as an "investigative historian"
but does not appear ever to have held an academic position. I've read a lot of his articles on
another website and he systematically supports Vladimir Putin. The arguments he puts forward are
thus, unsurprisingly, the standard pro-Putin arguments that have been put forward many times by
many authors over the last few years. Re-hashing them yet again, particularly in this rather polemical
style, suggests increasing nervousness on the part of Putin's American supporters. A side effect
of Charlottesville perhaps?
This Eric Zuesse who has recently been insinuating himself as an 'alt media star', is a known
Israeli propaganda agent who mixes some truth with big lies, Wikipedia-style, in Trojan Horse
service for Zuesse's intel agency masters Zuesse tries to sound trendy-critical of the USA, but
like other fakers he kicks the ball to Mossad at the key moments
Zuesse earned his Israeli-agent privileges long ago with a book attacking holocaust deniers,
& Zuesse regularly pipes up supporting other intel agent shills in the media, always touting himself
as 'fact-based' while disparaging others, Zuesse trying to paper over real truth with his too-many
links
A big con game Zuesse performs along with others, is trying to sell the fairy tale that 9-11
was done by the evil 'Saudis', & that Israel had zero zilch nada to do with 11 Sep 2001 & the
neo-con war aftermath Zuesse avoiding evidence such as rabbi's son & US Homeland Security chief
Michael Chertoff, releasing the arrested 'dancing Israels' of 9-11, & quickly putting them on
an aeroplane back to Israel
And Zuesse breezily dismisses, the New York Times photo article on the 'art student project'
inside the World Trade Center a couple of months before they were exploded, where the 'students'
were photographed with a set of boxes there in the NYC tower innards the boxes had a commercial
stamp on them they were boxes with components of bomb detonators
It's going to require a bit of effort ! a lot of effort, in fact to fully understand Gentile
and what he/Mussolini hoped to achieve through Fascism- The effort will likely tax the most ambitious
of our stenographer/journalist class: you'll have to take on board an understanding of Italy's
fragmented history, and especially of Italy's relationship to Catholicism: it's easy for me, I
lived it, but Brian Lamb was absolutely flummoxed when Maurizio Viroli tried to explain to him
that Italians incorporate within themselves holy-joe pious Catholic practices with utter disdain
for Church strictures !
https://www.c-span.org/video/?160904-1/niccolos-smile
As an Italian, I would, of course, play some beautiful music in the background. Tchaikovsky
gathered charming Italian folk music and composed the dynamic Capriccio Italien:
PS Our Jewish/zionist friends might find it intriguing that Jabotinsky centered his "spiritual
being" in Rome, and greatly admired Mussolini and sought to incorporate his ideas in Revisionist
Zionism.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most. Often, he reveals
his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity and his utter contempt for white Christians.
But there is that dead clock being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets
a good deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real
democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money
almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot
be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the
world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of WASPs and Jews, with their
Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite Fascist. And we should
never forget that while Jews are no more than 3% of the American population, they now are at least
30% (my guess would be closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them blamed and escaping
punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish
alliance against Catholics – is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against the Vatican to force
Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could
be made Pope. The Jesuits are far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church,
and the American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem 'immigrant'
as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and America's 'compassionate
conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should need to know that Putin is far, far better for
Russia's working class, Russia's non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State.
Charlottesville was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all. This
story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots
of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians mostly. The Italian mafiosi
are pikers compared to the American ones of Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not
the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer Lansky and many many
others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies!policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had. ..."
"... For example, when two top AIPAC officials!Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman!were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. ..."
Editors
Note: Mr. Alexis has sent us a well written position with which VT totally agrees
Former neoconservative luminary Francis Fukuyama of Stanford (formerly of Johns Hopkins)
compares the neoconservative movement to Leninism. Neoconservatism, according to Fukuyama, is
the reincarnation to some extent of both Leninism and Bolshevism.
Fukuyama's observation makes sense when even Irving Kristol, who founded the movement,
proudly admitted that the "honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good
standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International)."
And this neoconservative movement, as Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal has shown, found its
political and intellectual ideology "in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud."
Even after the birth of the neoconservative movement, many of its members such as Stephen
Schwartz of the Weekly Standard and Joan Wohlstetter of the RAND Corporation still had
a burning thirst for Lev Davidovich Bronstein, known as Leon Trotsky.
In that sense, the neoconservative persuasion is a subversive movement which started out in
the 1920s and 30s. Legal scholar Michael Lind pointed out some years ago that,
"Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right.
They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the
1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and
finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture
or political history."
This was the case for Kristol, who bragged about how his Jewish intellectual comrades such
as Nathan Glazer of Harvard, Philip Selznick of Berkley, Peter Rossi of Johns Hopkins, Merroe
Berger of Princeton, I. Milton Sacks of Brandeis, and Seymour Melman of Columbia were not only
Trotskyists but were "unquestionably the most feverishly articulate" in indoctrinating students
into their Weltanschauung.
Irving Kristol
Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish
intellectuals did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up
Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking.
America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy
that led to the collapse of the American economy.
We have to keep in mind that America and much of the Western world were scared to death of
Bolshevism and Trotskyism in the 1920s and early 30s because of its subversive activity.
Winston Churchill himself wrote an article in 1920 in the British newspaper Illustrated
Sunday Herald entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish
People."
The United States had document after document in archives (particularly at the Yale Law
School) on Bolshevik Revolution. One of those documents is entitled "Papers Relating to the
Foreign Relations of the United States 1918 Russia Vol. I – The Bolshevik 'Coup d'Etat'
November 7, 1917." Virtually no one wanted to tolerate Bolshevism.
Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie
Economics that "Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and
different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But
even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even
after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back.
These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather they are undead, or zombie, ideas."
Bolshevism or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different
forms. It has ideologically reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative
movement.
If this sounds like an exaggeration and if you think the projectile motion of Trotskyism is
over, listen to Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior advisor to the Mitt Romney for President campaign,
as to why he supported Romney for president:
"My support for Mitt Romney has something to do with a ship called the Serpa
Pinto and with an American Marxist revolutionary."
Schoenfeld later declared that his father was a Trotskyist in the revolutionary sense, and
that Obama was too soft on the Middle East, and Romney was the better choice to take care of
Iran. Schoenfeld was an editor for the neoconservative magazine Commentary.
As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute
are largely extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as
the Bradley Foundation were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.
Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish
groups such as the Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs, an organization which has been known to have "co-opted"
several "non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired
general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq."
Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the
CATO Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas "have taken American international
relations on an unfortunate detour," which is another way of saying that this revolutionary
movement is not what the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United
States would serve the American people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign
entities.
As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to
shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done
in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.
Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that
the Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle
East. For that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.
In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement
represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to
undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding
Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies!policies which have contributed to the
demise of the respect America once had.
Halper and Clarke move on to say that the neoconservative movement is "in complete contrast
to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of
Independence."
The neoconservative persuasion is horrible in the sense that much of the war in the Middle
East has been based on colossal hoaxes and fabrications.
This point became more interesting when it was discovered that Israel has maintained
covert operations against the U.S. on multiple levels, including smuggling illegal weapons
for years, while the neoconservative machine says nothing about this issue and keeps
propounding that Israel is a model of Western values in the Middle East.
Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish
individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas
Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.
The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel's espionage in the U.S., but no one has come
forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most political pundits value mammon
over truth.
For example, when two top AIPAC officials!Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman!were caught
passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended
them.
In the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage,"
Israel is a major country that pops up quite often. This is widely known among CIA and FBI
agents and U.S. officials for years.
One former U.S. intelligence official declared, "There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set
of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in
counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most
aggressive and active countries targeting the United States.
They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as
liaisons aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are
laughable."
In 1991, the Israelis tried to recruit a former U.S. intelligence official, but he declined.
"I had an Israeli intelligence officer pitch me in Washington at the time of the first Gulf
War. I said, 'No, go away,' and reported it to counterintelligence." Covert operations were
done by the Israelis in "a 1997 case in which the National Security Agency bugged two Israeli
intelligence officials in Washington discussing efforts to obtain a sensitive U.S. diplomatic
document.
Israel denied wrongdoing in that case and all others, and no one has been prosecuted." Yet
this has rarely seen the light of day in the popular media. Pointing these facts out, according
to the reasoning of Omri Ceren of the fifth column magazine Commentary , is tantamount
to anti-Semitism.
In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made the declaration that the United States had
already conquered Iraq, and it was time that the U.S. marched against Iran, Syria, and
Libya.
Under Obama, Sharon's prediction became a reality in Libya, and now the U.S. is
destabilizing Syria by covertly supporting the Syrian rebels, while the war drum is being
beaten against Iran.
In the process, Iran has been blamed for a cyber attack in the Middle East with little
evidence. By the fall of 2012, the United States and Israel were even considering a "surgical
strike" against Iran.
At the same time, the "democracy" which the neocons dreamed of establishing in Iraq has
become "increasingly authoritarian and narrowly sectarian," according to twenty-eight-year CIA
veteran and Georgetown University professor Paul R. Pillar. In his inaugural speech for his
second term, President Obama suggested that the perpetual war has come to an end.
But by that time the U.S. was already marshalling some of our precious men in Mali, and
British Prime Minister David Cameron has recently declared that the war in Mali will more than
likely last for decades, which is another way of saying that perpetual wars are here to stay.
And the people who will be paying for this are the American taxpayers, decent people who are
trying to put food on the table and generational children who will be drown in massive debt and
student loans.
What, then, are some of the outcomes of the neoconservative movement? What are some of its
revolutionary or subversive offshoots? We will explore these questions in the upcoming
articles, but one of the indirect by-products of this movement is that no person, democrat or
republican, can be elected as president without being a Zionist or at least favoring Israel
over the Founding Fathers. This point became clear when Obama won the presidential election in
2012.
Months before election, both Romney and Obama were competing as to who was going to give the
biggest tribute to Israel. Romney went to Israel and declared that Iran was the biggest threat
in the world, and Obama sent Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Israel right after Romney's
departure to tell Israel that his administration is in agreement with Israeli officials with
respect to Iran. Both Romney and Obama supported deploying troops to Syria if Assad, they said,
used chemical weapons.
For Alan Dershowitz of Harvard, it was the Jews in Florida who helped reelect Obama. This is
not without evidence, since it has been reported that at least 70 percent of Jewish voters
sided with Obama. Dershowitz continues to say that Jews like himself "must now realize that our
support for the president will be good for Israel over the next four years Jews vote for both
parties.
Nobody is ignoring us. Every rational candidate knows that they and their party must earn
our votes in every election." One would say that this absolutely means nothing, since Jews are
less than five percent of the population. But as we shall show in the next article, Jewish
billionaires were largely the main vehicles supporting both Democrats and so-called
Republicans.
Dershowitz then declared something that would have been a shock to the Founding Fathers:
"Most Americans, regardless of religion, are united in support of Israel's security, but
divided about social and economic issues. It is critically important that support for Israel's
security remains a bipartisan issue, and never becomes a wedge issue that divides voters along
party lines, as it has in some European countries."
In other words, even though the economy is a dismal failure, even though Americans are out
of work, even though people are being cheated out of their retirement plans, even though
student loans have been skyrocketed, Americans must support Israel (it has been at least $3
billion a year). Just like the Pharisees and rabbis who had to tell Pilate what to do in the
first century, Dershowitz declares, "I and others who support [Obama] will have his ear over
the next four years."
Almost two months before he won the presidential election, Obama invited Dershowitz to the
White House and told him, "I don't bluff." Obama also invited Edgar Bronfman, former president
of the World Jewish Congress, to the White House and told him, "My commitment to Israel's
security is bone deep." What would George Washington, Thomas Edison and others say? Let us hear
them.
George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in
extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as
possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote
relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns.
Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the
ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
friendships or enmities." Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations!entangling alliances with none," Grover Cleveland: "It is the policy of Monroe and of
Washington and Jefferson: Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling
alliance with none."
Does any president have the courage to pronounce these statements today? The answer is a
resounding no. The only former presidential candidate who tried to implement that foreign
policy was Ron Paul, but he was castigated as "a vicious anti-Semite" for doing so.
In a nutshell, if you are a follower of the Founding Fathers when it comes to foreign
policy, you are a "vicious anti-Semite." Moreover, if the Founding Fathers were alive today,
they would be all anti-Semites! Over the past few weeks, more than 60 articles have been
written against Chuck Hagel by two neoconservative magazines alone, Commentary and the
Weekly Standard (not to mention the Washington Post , National
Review , the Wall Street Journal , etc.).
This brings us to an essentially critical point that will be explored in more details later
in the series: the word anti-Semitism has carelessly been applied in the political landscape to
shut down rational arguments and important issues. It has become a weapon in the blessed hands
of those who seek to destabilize thoughtful discussion. You either support the neoconservative
ideology, or else
The most important feature of "neoliberalism" is that like Bolsheviks that believe in lases fare
in role of the state as "night watcher". The believe in market that they consider important the state
enforce the market mechanism of society. Nothing is left to the chance. this is "market uber alles"
religion. Market under neoliberal doctrine does not need any justification. It is a ultimate deity
that judge mere mortals and reqires compliance, achieved by spilling blood, if necessary.
Much like the idea of communism is a deity for Bolshviks. Kind of heaven on the earth. In this sense
this is market fundamentalism which is a lot in common with Islamic Fundamentalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Most Democrats are clueless about how the Neoliberals have hijacked the party. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism was ostensibly sold as promoting free-market capitalism. But what's actually happened is monopolistic, controlled-market capitalism. That's the morph. It's by design. In a Technocracy, corporate science, computer and finance wonks make the decisions, and governments enforce them. Rogue governments are economically isolated or attacked, weakened and overturned. If this all sounds like conspiracy-nut stuff, remember what you've been told about success: The losers watch things happen while the winners make things happen. ..."
"... Hitler and Stalin both harboured ideologies. Neoliberalism looks just as dangerous. The French didn't revolt because they understood economics but they knew that the system was rigged and that they were getting poorer and hungrier. When you hear the word 'ideology' you just know that it will fail and end badly. History is chock-full of examples. I can't think of a successful ideology...thanks for posting. ..."
Professor Philip Mirowski author of Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism
Survived the Financial Meltdown, explains the intellectual history of Neo-liberalism, what Neo-liberals
believe, making capitalists think differently, the role of think tanks in Neo-liberalism, the mythology
of market supremacy, how Facebook teaches you to be a Neo-liberal agent, shaming and Neo-liberalism,
how policy movements are built, climate and the affordable care act and Neo-liberal power and how
the left can respond to Neo-liberal dominance.
From the 6/26/14 episode of the Majority Report
This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at
http://Majority.FM
Regardless of the textbook definition of "neo liberalism," the left needs to start using the
word. It's an ideological icebreaker that causes people to reevaluate their thinking. The word
liberal has a negative connotation for many people. Using the word neoliberal takes advantage
of that. Additionally, the word helps point out exactly what's wrong with our economic system.
Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are neoliberal. The word allows for a new paradigm where the
left is positioned in opposition to the uber rich and corporatists. This draws the line where
we need it to be.
The Left in Europe and elsewhere use it. It's only in the United States where you use the term
"Neoliberalism" and everyone starts getting confused. I agree, it needs to be used more often.
It might destroy The Narcissism of Minor Differences between the Democratic and Republican parties,
however. The mainstream media would never be able to handle that.
+Babak Golshahi Yes, I have a copy. I haven't read it. I just have it. I keep meaning to read
it but I get a few pages in and I get pissed off and think "I don't need this shit in my brain
just before I go to bed". I know the gist of it because I've heard some of her lectures.
I don't know who first said the market is a good servant but a poor master but they got it
right. The notion that markets 'know' best and we should therefore govern ourselves accordingly
is - it seems to me - insane and fundamentally anti- human. Humanity derives it's nature and guiding
principles from what can be bought or sold; and if you refuse to conform, then you become surplus?
So humanity(thoughts, creativity, sympathies etc.) takes a far back seat to markets? I don't get
how the soullessness of this liturgy is not evident.
I agree with your points however I would add that 'free market place' should not be over-romanticised.
the market always needs rules and regulations to function - its just that the neoliberals regulate
it to favor the rich. social democrats and other truly leftist parties would prefer to regulate
it in favor of everyone (rich and poor)
Reminds me of Ghandi's reply to, 'What do you think of Western Civilization?' "I think
it would be a good idea."
I suppose you could call swap meets or what they had at the end of feudalism free markets.
That is before the Elites swooped in with the help of the state and took over the commons. I think
one of the biggest confusions comes in the confluence of top-down Capitalism with industrialization,
as if that's the only way to organize production and build a first world economy.
I hear that one of the 'battle cries' of the European left is 'We can do better than Capitalism.'
I believe that very strongly. Human beings are nothing if not creative. We can do so much better
than this.
Neoliberalism is breathing its last but a back to the future Keynesian model is probably not
a great idea. We will very soon need a very different economic model entirely. Interesting what
Thomas Friedman recently said. "I'm left of Bernie Sanders and right of the editorial pages of
the Wall St Journal" Maybe we have to throw the old dualities of capitalism/ socialism economics
and right / left politics on the dust bin of history to make any real progres
Sounds interesting. I'm not against exploring new ideas but let's be careful. Remember that
in 1990s neoliberalism itself was sold as 'an alternative' to a supposedly outdated keynesian
model that belonged in a dust bin of history... Let's not fall for this again. Plus Friedman's
mumbo jumbo only sounds profound. If you look at his track record he's never seen a bad idea he
didn't like.
the reason why the Nordic models work so well is because innovation is championed by the state
and vital social institutions like healthcare and education are provided for, creating a healthy,
proactive population. the reason why 'socialism' has not worked in other countries (ie the Soviet
Union) is because it was not actually socialism, but messed up governments run by dictators. there
are democratic socialists (like myself) who do not advocate communism (the complete destruction
of the notion of private property) but rather think the free market can be reformulated in a democratic
way so that it can work to the benefit of everyone
"night watchmen" is a vain embellishment for what is really the work of a janitor or a babysitter.
When the "free market" shits itself after throwing a rager, who is called in the "clean up" (bail
out) the mess? The state, with taxpayers money.
Ludwig Von Mises: "What an acting man needs to know is not the state of affairs under equilibrium,
but information about the most appropriate method of transforming, by successive steps, P1 into
P2. The knowledge of conditions which will prevail under equilibrium is useless for the director
whose task it is to act today under present conditions. What he must learn is how to proceed in
the most economical way with the means available today which are the inheritance of an age with
different valuations, a different technological knowledge, and different information about problems
of location. He must know which step is the next he must take. In this dilemma the equations provide
no help. This so called state of equilibrium is a purely imaginary construction. In a changing
world it can never be realized. It differs from today's state as well as from any other realizable
state of affairs. What impels a man toward change and innovation is not the vision of equilibrium
prices, but the anticipation of the height of the prices of a limited number of articles as the
will prevail on the market on the date at which he plans to sell. A knowledge of the graduation
of the values of consumer' goods in this state of equilibrium is required. This graduation is
one of the elements of these equations assumed as known. Yet the director {lenin/obama} knows
only his present valuation, not also his valuation under hypothetical state of equilibrium. He
knows nothing about how he himself will value on the day the equilibrium will be reached." quoted
from Human Action p. 711
Your guest is a propagandist since he is using the original argument of the capitalists in
response to socialists-communist who said the government is a super-information processor who
knows about what's more valuable to a given human being at a given time and place than the human
being himself. So this guest is very unoriginal since he steals his own counter-argument from
capitalists, which is hilarious.
Great conversation. I wouldn't be as conspiratorial about it but the innovation of think tanks
is incredibly important in this. I was obsessed with neo-liberalism a few years ago; I wrote a
history of the movement in the U.S. for my undergrad dissertation - focusing mostly on the post-1945
years when it began to take hold in the establishment, particularly the 1970's. The characterization
of the market as an information processor is exactly what they argue. The notion that the market
is a naturally occurring entity is so crazy to me that I couldn't stop reading and writing about
it. For those interested in this stuff I highly recommend watching the Adam Curtis documentaries
"The Trap" and "All Watch Over by Machines of Loving Grace" - these films really get to the heart
of what Mirowski is getting at. :)
Technocracy was also borne in the 1930's. This is neoliberalism's end goal, I believe, that's
why they are running capitalism to the ground. They want it to ultimately fail so that they can
implement their technocratic utopia for a select few, but a nightmare for the rest of us.
Is neoliberalism ending? It's morphing. The International Monetary Fund is now suggesting some,
ahem, "reconsideration of what the neo-liberal agenda is likely to achieve." Neo-liberalism was
a means to an end. Behind the scenes, since the early 70's, the movement has always been toward
Global Technocracy. The key tenets of GT originally envisioned by Zbigniew Brzezinski were: *Diminished
sovereignty with more transnational corporate control; *International trade facilitated by international
banking and floating currencies; *A worldwide computer network with which economic activities
could be easily transacted and monitored. Such a network would also easily monitor the activities
of citizens. The attraction was that economically enmeshed nations would be far less likely to
war with each other. Z-Biggie suggested that nationalist tendencies, labor unions, democracy and
such would necessitate keeping the long-term GT project in the background. It popped up occasionally,
like when George H.W. Bush mentioned something about a New World Order. The privatization, deregulation,
union busting, austerity measures and government-shrinking, trade superseding sovereignty, floating
currencies ! all hallmarks of neo-liberalism. All were tools to effectuate the Global Technocracy.
You didn't really think the barely regulated, untaxed "World Wide Web" just . . . happened? Or
the change from market trading to computer and data-driven robotrading was just . . . innovation?
Neo-liberalism was ostensibly sold as promoting free-market capitalism. But what's actually
happened is monopolistic, controlled-market capitalism. That's the morph. It's by design. In a
Technocracy, corporate science, computer and finance wonks make the decisions, and governments
enforce them. Rogue governments are economically isolated or attacked, weakened and overturned.
If this all sounds like conspiracy-nut stuff, remember what you've been told about success: The
losers watch things happen while the winners make things happen.
Faced with burgeoning world population, resource and food issues, the Global Corporate Technocracy
is what the elites and their think tankers came up with. There has been some pushback from the
libertarian right and socialist left, but as long as those two factions are kept at odds and marginalized
by the media, the Technocrats will continue to progress. An economic elite and their wonks will
be protected and benefit, while the needs and aspirations of the populace will be corporately
managed as far as profit is available; abandoned if not.
Western-style Technocracy hasn't been fully successful with its Global goal. The BRICS have
been staking claim on their regions, with their own ideas about managing them. Osama bin Laden
railed against the spread of Western capitalism and culture, and the problems with Islamic fundamentalism
continue. Nevertheless, we continue bringing new markets into the fold, under the guise of 'regime
change' and 'third-world development.' Mrs. Clinton is a big believer.
Whether various recent populist or nationalist movements succeed in altering the path of Global
Technocracy remains to be seen. Some observers say the elite fostering it may need to employ something
called Soft Fascism to continue forwarding their goals. Neo-liberalism has served its purpose:
Institutionalizing transnational corporate hegemony. How the Global Technocratic elite balance
their profit-taking with the world issues they purport to manage will be the story of the coming
decades. Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere or the notional value of the financial derivatives
market may indicate just how well that's working out. ADDENDUM: Readers have mentioned a few recent
books emerging on the Global Technocracy which I haven't read but from checking their reviews
sound like they would provide more background and context. They are: The Seventh Sense: Power,
Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse Of Global Transformation
Instructive interview. I can't help thinking that there may be global social consequences (a
social kickback) from this type of ideology. Somehow, Neoliberalism comes across as a 1950s style
comic-book mad dictator, with staring eyes and a maniacal laugh, doing its best to conquer he
world. People aren't stupid. The can't be expected to understand economics and social engineering
but they have common-sense.
Hitler and Stalin both harboured ideologies. Neoliberalism looks just as dangerous. The
French didn't revolt because they understood economics but they knew that the system was rigged
and that they were getting poorer and hungrier. When you hear the word 'ideology' you just know
that it will fail and end badly. History is chock-full of examples. I can't think of a successful
ideology...thanks for posting.
interesting guy but the left / right language has gotta end. we're already talking past that
in distinguishing neo and classic libertarians.. come on!
In The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism -a canonical work of economic sociology in the 1970s
and '80s-Daniel Bell argued that the productive and consumptive sides of capitalism had fallen into
contradiction. Capitalism continued to rely on the Protestant ethic of sobriety and delayed gratification
in the sphere of production, yet, contradictorily, had come to rely on modernist hedonism and credit
purchasing in the sphere of consumption. Modern capitalism needed people to be sober by day and swingers
by night. What is more, the displacement of the Protestant ethic by hedonism, Bell argued, was primarily
the work of capitalism itself. Its mass production urbanized the population and created an economy
of abundance, the continuation of which relied on ever increasing demand, stimulated through marketing
and the extension of credit. This pulled the middle class away from small town, Protestant values.
In other words, capitalism was undermining the conditions of its own existence. The economy's contradictory
need for both prudence and prodigality from its participants was "the deepest challenge to the society."
I first read and taught Bell as a graduate student in the 1990s. Already by then the urgency of
Bell's thesis had receded. Capitalism had weathered this putative internal contradiction for a generation,
with no signs of implosion. The perceived threat to American capitalism at the time came instead
from the outside, from Japan. Japan's integrated industrial policy, "quality circles," and knack
for translating American technological advances into desirable consumer products had created an economic
juggernaut that seemed to be rolling right over American industry. It seemed emblematic when President
George H. W. Bush led a pugnacious trade delegation to Japan in 1992 only to fall ill and, at a state
dinner, cast the craw and faint into the lap of the Japanese prime minister.
Japan's economic miracle, moreover, could itself be read as putting Bell's thesis in question.
At that time, the routine of the Japanese salaryman was to work very long and grave hours at the
office followed by almost daily late-night drinking parties and the occasional group outing to the
hot spring baths, the night girls, or the geisha: sober by day, swinger by night. This behavior was
not seen as contradictory. Nor did it have to be. The compartmentalization of value spheres and conduct
is commonplace in most human societies; the demand for consistency is the real anomaly. The case
could thus be made that Bell's sense of foreboding was but an artifact of the American tendency to
misconstrue as a human norm the peculiarly Puritan aspiration for consistency of personality across
all spheres, rationalizing all life according to one supreme value. Setting aside that assumption,
it seemed to me not so much that American capitalism was becoming self-contradictory as that it was
becoming more "Japanese," with the undergraduate ethos of "work hard play hard" as its training ground.
Whatever the shortcomings of Bell's specific thesis, however, one should not dismiss the more
general possibility Bell raises of a system-threatening contradiction between a cultural system and
an economic system. In particular, there can be a contradiction between a society's economic ideology,
or cultural system of economic legitimation, and its economic reality. I argue that we are experiencing
this in an acute way under neoliberalism-a contradiction between the market ideology neoliberalism
espouses and the corporate reality it fosters.
Any system exhibiting a contradiction between its legitimation system and its reality is set up
for sudden delegitimation. But in the case of neoliberalism, the contradiction does more. Neoliberalism
was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the University of Chicago into
a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the totalitarian state and the socialist
state but also (and especially) against the New Deal regulatory and welfare state. Neoliberalism
sought to privatize public services, deregulate private services, and shrink social spending.
1 It is thus unusual among ideologies in that it does not seek to rationalize the
status quo. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll back the status quo
and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize) the "natural" principles
of the market. In other words, it is transformative. But the contradiction between its individualist
ideals and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this
contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth, intense
inequality, and coercion. This makes neoliberalism's position all the more precarious. And when the
ideological support of a system collapses-as appears to be happening with neoliberalism-then either
the system will collapse, or new levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain
it. This appears to be the juncture at which we have arrived.
The Corporation as a Franchised Government
For the contradiction between neoliberalism and the corporation to be clear, it is necessary to
say a few words about the nature of the business corporation.
The business corporation, like any corporation, is a little government. Its deepest roots run
back to the municipality of Rome, the first corporation in law, which was at the same time the
civitas , or Roman state. More proximately, the business corporation was modeled on the incorporated
medieval town, and it carries forward its central legal features.
(1) As is true of the town, a corporate firm's assets are not owned by natural persons, but
by an abstract legal entity -the "artificial person" of the corporation, which assumes the legal
position of sole proprietor. This fact should immediately explode the most insidious myth about the
business corporation, that it is owned by its stockholders. The whole point of the legal form is
to transfer ownership of the business assets to this legal entity, which in principle "never dies."
This prevents investors from pulling these assets out and liquidating the firm, and it allows all
economic liabilities generated by the firm to be shifted from natural persons to this entity. Since
the legal entity owns the assets of the business corporation, the stockholders obviously do not.
In the case of a university or other incorporated nonprofit, it is obvious that the assets are
owned by a legal entity, since there are no stockholders to whom one could ascribe ownership.
The business corporation, however, is commonly read through the lens of the partnership (due in good
measure to the efforts of the neoliberals, as we will see), as if the stockholders were a species
of partner and thus co-owners of the firm. Yet this is precisely what they are not, lacking the ownership
rights, the liabilities, and the responsibilities of partners.
The misconception that stockholders are owners akin to partners in a partnership seems to stem
from two things. First, stockholders have purchased stock, which is imagined to be tantamount to
acquiring part ownership. But stock is just a financial instrument-a special form of good that a
corporation is privileged to sell. And purchasing a good sold by a firm-whether stocks, blocks, or
socks-does not give one ownership rights in the firm. In the United States, as in most countries,
stockholders, whether acting individually or jointly, cannot use, lend out, exclude others from,
collateralize, sell, or alienate corporate assets. In other words, stock ownership does not convey
any rights of ownership over the firm or its assets. And this has been true from the
beginning (despite legal ideology sometimes to the contrary). Stockholders have no legal claim whatsoever
on these assets except at bankruptcy, when they are last in line as heirs, not first in line as owners.
Nor do stockholders have a legal right to profits or dividends. Dividends are issued at the discretion
of the board-as Apple demonstrated quarter after quarter to its long-suffering stockholders.
The second source of the confusion is that stockholders appear to have ultimate control of the
firm, and ultimate control is a right of owners. This view, however, rests on a double misconception.
First, while ownership implies control rights, control rights do not necessarily imply ownership.
If they did, the boards of charitable foundations would be the owners, as would the bishops and elders
of churches, the principals of schools, the mayors of towns, and the presidents and parliaments of
countries. As this should make clear, control can derive from jurisdictional authority no less than
from ownership. Therefore, one cannot infer shareholder ownership from whatever control rights shareholders
might have. Second, stockholders do not in fact have any control rights, whether proximate
or ultimate, over the firm-at least not in the United States nor in most other countries. In the
business corporation, as in the university, the ultimate right to control the property and to create,
fill, and prescribe the duties of all positions lies with the board, as is expressly stated in the
corporate charter or general incorporation statute. (Holders of a majority of the stock must consent
to a firm's liquidation or its merger with another firm, because this involves the death of the firm.
But they have no right to initiate or force these actions.)
It is true that the holders of common stock (although not the holders of preferred stock or other
nonvoting shares) get to elect all members of the board other than the members of the first board.
And this appears to give them ultimate control. If they are well organized, it will indeed likely
give them de facto control. But this is not a legally enforceable control right . Imagine
that all the common stock is held by a single stockholder, who therefore can place on the board whomever
she will. If this board nonetheless subsequently decides to defy her, all she can do is wait for
the next board election and replace it-just as the citizens of a town must wait for the next election
to replace their city council or mayor (assuming no criminal activity). She cannot overrule the board,
nor remove the offending board members, nor sue them (all things she could do if she were the owner
and they her legal agent). All control rights lie with the board (just as all control rights lie
with a sovereign parliament, not with the citizenry that elects it).
It might yet be thought that, although the right of election does not convey genuine control rights,
it is itself evidence of ownership. But this is not correct either-as if the cardinals who elect
the pope "own" the papacy, or the citizens who elect the mayor or president "own" the town or the
state and its assets. True owners don't get a vote, but a veto, which is why the governance rule
for general partnerships (whose members are true owners of the firm's assets) is unanimity
on all major questions affecting the firm. The right of shareholders to participate in board elections
is a charter right, not a property right.
In light of this, it is correct to argue, as did Adolf Berle and Gardner Means in their 1932 tour
de force The Modern Corporation and Private Property , that the modern corporation exhibits
a "separation of ownership and control." But Berle and Means were wrong to suggest that this separation
occurred gradually, as shareholders became more numerous and geographically dispersed. Rather, the
separation is inherent to the corporate form. Ownership is with the entity; control is with the board,
which acts on behalf of the entity. What Berle and Means meant to underscore is that all but the
largest shareholders have lost meaningful participation in the election of the board, and thus have
lost their influence over it, leaving hired managers a free hand. But properly put, this is not a
separation of ownership and control (which obtains regardless of the shareholders' level of
participation), but a separation of shareholder and de facto control, or more precisely,
a separation of shareholder and "influence" through election. Control of a corporation is simply
not a function of who "owns" it, any more than control of a town is. (If it were, control would rest
with the legal entity; but an abstract entity cannot act and a fortiori cannot control.) Rather,
control rights are established by the charter.
As noted above, the point of having assets owned by a legal entity is to prevent assets from being
pulled out by investors, forcing partial or complete liquidation of the firm. That is the Achilles
heel of the general partnership as a business form. In contrast, with a corporation, assets are locked
in permanently and can be specialized to the production process, allowing for increased scale and
productivity. Historically, this is the main advantage of the corporate form for business. Marx was
thus right to hold that bourgeois property would become a fetter on the productive powers of capital,
to be burst asunder and replaced with socialized property. But it has been socialized primarily at
the level of the corporation, not at the level of the state. Corporate property is a form of socialized
property.
(2) The next legal feature that the business corporation carried over from the town is that, like
the officers of a town, the managers and investors of a business corporation are exempt from liability
for corporate debts , and in practice almost always escape liability for corporate harms, or
torts. This is a second advantage of the corporate form for business. Debts and damages are paid
by the corporate entity, not by natural persons. Here, however, an important distinction must be
noted between the corporate town and the corporate firm. The officers of the town are elected by
those over whom they rule and upon whom they act. Therefore, if they cause harm, it is at their own
political risk, regardless of their protection from normal economic and legal risk. The officers
of the corporate firm, in contrast, neither rule over nor act upon those who elect them, but rather
rule over disenfranchised employees and act on numerous third parties. This relieves those who control
corporate firms of most of their personal incentive to avoid causing harm when it is otherwise profitable.
(3) If neither the shareholders nor the managers own the assets of the corporate firm, whence
derives management's authority? Like a town, every corporation receives from the state a jurisdiction
within which its officers legislate and rule. A university's board of trustees, for example, legislates
and rules over the property and personnel of the university-an authority it receives from the state,
via the corporate charter. Similarly, in a business corporation, the board of directors legislates
and rules over the property and personnel of the firm, even though the directors may not own any
of it. This authority of the board, too, is delegated to it by the state, via a charter. It does
not come from the shareholders (who, although they select the occupants of the seats on the board
going forward, do not create the board's structure, procedures, powers, or duties). Indeed, the board
is created and begins to operate the business before shares are even issued. The board creates the
shareholders; shareholders do not create the board. And prior to that, the state creates the board,
and endows it with its authority. This does not make the board and the firm it controls an agent
of the state. Rather, it is the state's franchisee. To spell this out: the corporate firm gets its
"personhood" (its right to own and contract as a separate legal entity), its liability regime, its
governance structure, and its governing authority from the state, but it hires its own personnel
and secures its own financing. This is a franchising relationship, and for this reason, I refer to
corporations as "franchise governments."
2
The Neoliberal Corporation
The above exposition of corporations as governing authorities franchised by the civil government
is, with slight modification, the classic view of corporations, as expounded, for example, in Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England . "None but the king can make a corporation," which the
king does either directly or through delegation to others such as the legislature. The authority
the corporation wields, Blackstone continues, is a "franchise" of the king, analogous in this respect
to the authority that the feudal vassal wields, also delegated from the king. Like lordships, corporations
are part of the overall system of government established by the king.
3 And this is part of the reason that classical liberals, including Adam Smith, were
so suspicious of corporations and wished to circumscribe them.
4 They recognized that they were not part of the free market, but represented state
interventions in the market.
This is, of course, not the view of corporations espoused by neoliberals. The problem that the
corporation posed for neoliberals, when neoliberalism first emerged as a self-conscious ideological
movement at the end of World War II, is that one could hardly put over a free market agenda if one's
leading business actors were seen as state-created entities. So neoliberals had to retheorize the
corporation as a creation of private contract (or at least something that could in principle be created
by private contract). Accordingly, stockholders-rechristened "shareholders"-were theorized as owners
who hire a board to act on their behalf. (Again, remember how wrong this is; shareholders are not
owners of corporate assets, and the board gets its authority before they even exist.) In other words,
neoliberals cast the corporation as a glorified partnership, to be operated in the interest of its
imagined owners and principals, the stockholders.
This account superficially squares the corporation with market principles of private property
and contract. But the social cost has been high. The institutionalization of this account in recent
decades has transformed both the boardroom and the workplace, producing what I call the "neoliberal
corporation." And this is responsible for many of the economic inequities and dislocations that plague
us today.
First it transformed the boardroom. Starting in the 1980s, under the influence of the Chicago
school of "law and economics"-one of the founding strongholds of neoliberal thought-both law and
norms changed to reorient corporations towards maximizing "shareholder value." This was done partly
by empowering stockholders in the boardroom-although unfortunately at a time when the character of
the typical stockholder was changing, from an individual long-term investor to an institutional investor
(a pension fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, or private equity fund) working under quarterly profit
imperatives. Executives who didn't look out for this new (and impatient) Number One were liable to
find themselves replaced.
Even more effectively, this reorientation was done by bribing executives with compensation packages
heavily skewed towards stock and stock options. A generation ago, stock compensation was an insignificant
part of CEO pay. Today, in Fortune 500 companies, it constitutes over 80 percent of a CEO's pay.
5 In the tinted view of human psychology typical of Chicago School neoliberalism,
it is assumed that CEOs will strive narrowly to maximize their personal income, not the welfare of
the firm. Therefore, the Chicago neoliberal reasons, structure their pay so that, in maximizing it,
they simultaneously maximize (short-term) stockholder returns.
Two effective means of quickly juicing a stock price are to increase dividend payments and to
buy back stock. As William Lazonick details, stock buybacks-that is, corporate repurchases of its
previous stock issues, which decrease the supply of outstanding stock, and thus increase its price-have
become so popular with executives that buybacks now consume on average over 50 percent of the profits
of S&P 500 firms. In some years, the buybacks of some firms have topped 100 percent of corporate
profits.
6 That is, the companies spent more on repurchasing their stock than they earned for
the year, which is done by cutting into their reserves, taking on debt, or selling off assets. Increasing
dividend payments, even when profits are not rising, similarly robs the future to pay off the present.
This is what I call "vampire management," sucking out the accumulated life force of the company to
feed current stockholders. Others have likened it to cannibalism-of stockholders eating the corporate
body. What it means, in Bell's terms, is that the hedonism and immediate gratification of the rentier
has gained control over the arena of production.
The societal consequences have been overwhelmingly negative. On the one hand, it means that the
revenues of the firm have been massively reallocated, with much of what used to be shared with workers
now disgorged to shareholders and executives. Wages stagnated even when productivity continued to
climb. This is at the root of our growing economic inequality. But it also affects the rate of economic
growth itself. Production is still an arena wherein focus on the long term-that is, delayed gratification-works
best. But the refocus on short-term share price means that research and development get cut, reinvestment
in plant expansion gets cut, and worker training gets cut, because their payoffs are not immediate.
The result is slower growth. What is more, the pressure against worker training encourages, as an
alternative, the de-skilling of the production process, which in turn facilitates the offshoring
of jobs, further suppressing domestic wages.
In short, when the short-term focus of the hedonist gains control of the arena of production,
all lose out in the long term, but the worker loses out disproportionately, in both
long term and short term. There is no longer a "cultural contradiction" between production and consumption,
as both are now ruled by an ethos of immediate gratification. It turns out we were better off when
there was a contradiction.
Second, neoliberal retheorization of the corporation has transformed the workplace. As part of
this retheorization, neoliberals adopted a newfangled principal-agent theory indebted to game theory,
according to which principal and agent always act opportunistically towards one another. In the neoliberal
view, shareholders are assumed to be the principals (rather than the corporate entity and its authorized
purpose), and the employees-whether top managers or line employees-are assumed to be their agents,
who will shirk if left to their own vices. Fortunately for top managers, boards primarily use the
carrot of stock and stock options to align the managers' interests with the shareholders (although
this is arguably the most expensive way to motivate managers). But there aren't enough carrots
to go around. So line workers get the stick-that is, an increasingly coercive workplace with electronic
monitoring, shaming, and so forth. This of course decreases their actual commitment to their employer
and, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, can turn them into actual shirkers.
In sum, the rise of the neoliberal corporation creates a slow-growth, high-inequality, high-coercion
economy.
Neoliberalism and the New Scarcity
What neoliberalism has done to the realm of production must also be placed in the context of what
neoliberalism has done to the realm of consumption. This can be summarized by saying that neoliberalism
reimposes the logic of scarcity on the economy of abundance. It does so in several ways.
First, as just explained, are the distributive effects of neoliberalism. Workers are deprived
of their productivity gains, with almost all of it conferred upon the executives and the rentiers.
So their purchasing power remains stagnant even as wealth explodes all around them. This is both
a material and psychological reimposition of scarcity.
Second are the privatization effects of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism shrinks the sphere
of public services and "privatizes"-or rather, corporatizes-the provision of the public services
that remain. In most instances, corporate provision has proven to be more expensive than public provision,
since the rentier investor needs his cut. Think of privately operated toll roads, or Chicago's privately
operated parking. And it shifts the cost of service from the wealthy taxpayer to the general public
of users, which pays cost plus profit. Relatedly, college has gotten so expensive, as its own managerial
costs have exploded while state legislatures have cut public funding, that parents' expectation of
a "return on investment" becomes understandable. Students feel forced into the moneymaking occupations,
rather than artistic or care occupations, because of student debt, and because essential goods increasingly
must be purchased, including education for the students' own anticipated children. The tightening
of personal bankruptcy laws increases this pressure. There is limited public provision of the basics
to liberate one for risk-taking, including entrepreneurial risk-taking, and fewer second chances
if one gets in financial trouble. So even the youth become extremely risk averse. With fewer going
into the helping professions and creative professions, there is less help for those in need, and
an impoverishment of the culture.
Third are the monopoly effects of neoliberalism. One of the first targets of the Chicago
neoliberals, both on the law faculty and the economics faculty, was the country's antitrust regime.
Breaking up monopolies was just one more unnecessary government intervention in the market. Given
enough time, the market would itself undermine monopolies, as new entrants brought disruptive technologies
to bear. Their recommended rollback of antitrust enforcement was finally institutionalized under
President Reagan.
Unfortunately, neoliberal argumentation on this point was always tendentious. Firms naturally
pursue "pricing power," and when industry concentration can occur through acquisition even more easily
than through organic growth, it is foolhardy to imagine that new entrants will keep markets competitive.
They can simply be bought out. Indeed, in a corporate economy, this can be done even against the
will of the target company's management. And sure enough, monopoly has returned to the United States
with a vengeance, as Barry Lynn and Philip Longman of New America have argued. Commodity food producers
are hit especially hard. Their productive inputs-seeds and sprays, for example-are in the hands of
a few suppliers. Meanwhile, their productive outputs-chicken, beef, pork, corn, soy, dairy, and so
on-often have only one local buyer. A few enormous processors operate as monopsonists with respect
to the food producers, and monopolists with respect to the consumer, lowering incomes on the one
end, and raising prices on the other. Monopoly pricing pervades other consumer markets as well-cable
television and Internet service, eyewear, beer, breakfast cereal, pet food, department stores and
office supply stores, and so on-where monopoly is often concealed behind a veneer of brand diversity.
Standing at the end of supply chains riddled with unchecked monopolies, the consumer finds the reach
of her dollar considerably foreshortened. Lynn and Longman also argue persuasively that monopoly
has suppressed innovation and job creation. Monopoly is thus a double burden, producing fewer good
incomes in an economy of overpriced goods.
Fourth are the globalization effects of neoliberalism. For those who control corporations,
the new mobility of corporate capital has been a race to the top, as national jurisdictions compete
to offer ever more favorable terms of operation for those who control. For everyone else, that means
a race to the bottom, as corporate tax rates are cut along with environmental regulations, health
and safety regulations, and worker wages. The decline in tax receipts means a decline of funding
for what still remains in the public sphere, even as the other declines mean these funds are more
needed. It may be the case that there are productive efficiencies to be gained through the mobility
of capital-although as we've seen, if this comes at the expense of long-term investments in productivity,
this may not be true on balance. But even supposing there are, the costs and benefits of these productivity
gains are being distributed most unequally.
In this new neoliberal world, the economic drive elicited by the siren song of hedonism is replaced
by the spur of deprivation, as wages fail to keep up with the cost of living.
7 American households have the highest credit card debt load in the world (over $6,000
on average, but over $16,000 on average among those that have credit card debt), which is perhaps
not surprising given that over half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, with an estimated 62
percent lacking liquid funds sufficient to cover a $1,000 emergency expenditure.
8 Debt that was racked up to live large becomes debt racked up to stay afloat. It
is all the same to the creditor rentier. The economic ideal of the financier, banker, and rentier
in general is that all purchases, whether of private individuals or governments, be made on credit,
so that all income streams are channeled to themselves, the debt holders, to pay interest and principal.
Why the debts are being contracted is immaterial.
In sum, the neoliberal effort to square the corporation with free market principles of private
property, contract, and self-interest has had the consequence of increasing inequality, coercion,
and mediocrity in the corporation. And since the neoliberal push for "privatization" really means
corporatization, these maladies of the neoliberal corporation are pushed ever further into American
life. The American worker and consumer is then undermined further by the exodus of capital abroad
and the return of monopoly at home. Neoliberalism has thus created a world that is almost the inverse
of the world Bell was diagnosing. The short-term orientation of the hedonist has been imposed on
the production process, while the logic of scarcity has been reimposed upon the working class and
middle class in the sphere of consumption, even as productivity continues to rise, but is siphoned
off by plutocrats. It is an economy of abundance for the few, but of scarcity and coercion for the
many.
There is no virtue today in poverty and abstinence. Work, as Bell notes, is no longer proof of
salvation, nor an end in itself as a "calling," but a means to consumption and social status. Stagnant
or declining wages, especially when set next to the exploding wealth of those at the top, is therefore
only experienced as great frustration. And so one gets the kind of elections we have been seeing
around the world.
The Contradictions of Neoliberalism
Because modern economies are corporate, not atomistic, there is a yawning chasm between the legitimating
ideals of neoliberalism and the reality it creates. And this chasm is even wider than first appears
if the true nature of the business corporation is kept in view. For example:
(1) Neoliberalism idealizes an individualistic, private property economy. But the economy it actually
promotes is a socialized, corporate property economy, where property is controlled by, but unowned
by, natural persons, with all the problems of moral hazard that this raises.
(2) Neoliberalism idealizes a free market economy, with minimal state intervention, beyond protecting
property and contract. Yet the economy it promotes is dominated by state-created legal entities.
State intervention makes the corporation.
(3) Neoliberalism holds that the state is a sphere of coercion, while the market is a sphere of
freedom. But in most contexts, the state only makes general laws that must be followed as one pursues
one's own ends. In contrast, the corporation, for which most people must now work, issues
direct commands to its ends, and under neoliberalism it has only become more coercive in seeing
that these commands are carried out.
(4) Neoliberalism promises to increase economic growth. But corporations reconstructed on neoliberal
lines retard growth, in favor of redirecting revenues to those who control and finance.
(5) Neoliberalism advocates an ethic of individual responsibility. If you fail in the market,
you should accept the consequences, and not expect the wealth generated by others to be redistributed
to you. But thanks to the principle of limited liability, the corporate form spares those who control
the corporation from the legal or direct economic consequences of their actions. The corporation
is institutionalized irresponsibility. In the neoliberal economy, individual responsibility is imposed
on the weak (with a downsized social safety net, tightened personal bankruptcy laws, etc.); freedom
from responsibility is enjoyed by the strong-those who invest, and those who control.
It is hard to exaggerate how far neoliberal ideology is contradicted by our economic reality.
The contradiction ultimately stems from the failure of neoliberals to understand the corporate form,
and thus a failure to understand the corporate economy. Indeed, it means a failure to understand
the modern world as a whole, which is fundamentally corporate in its construction. Its corporatization
began in medieval Europe in the wake of the recovery of the Roman law of corporations. The corporate
form first transformed the semi-subordinate bodies of the Church (its monasteries, cathedral chapters,
confraternities, chantries), and eventually the Church as a whole, all modeled as corporations. It
then transformed civil society (its towns, universities, and guilds). And then it transformed the
state (inspiring the positing of an abstract and sovereign juridical person, the "state," distinct
from the ruler).
Briefly, it looked like that would be the end of the line for the corporate form. Rhetoric, and
to an extent, reality, suggested that the corporate form would be swept away, with corporate rights
replaced by the rights of man. In the Age of Enlightenment, corporate bodies came under attack as
remnants of the ancien régime-examples of legal privilege obnoxious to the demand for equality under
the law. At the Constitutional Convention, America's founders, fearing the rise of monopoly and a
monied aristocracy, refused to grant the power of incorporation to the federal government.
9 The French Constitution of 1791 went so far as to dissolve all corporations for
being "injurious to liberty and equality of rights." But, in America, federal incorporation was later
held to be an implied power, and, in France, the corporate ban would prove to be short-lived.
The problem with neoliberalism is that it construes the idealized, individualist world of eighteenth-century
rhetoric as a good approximation of twenty-first-century reality. But in the nineteenth-century United
States especially, a new corporate age was birthed as the corporate form made its final and most
potent conquest, transforming the business firm and economy. In our "social imaginary," to use a
coinage of Charles Taylor, the United States is the individualist society sans pareil -the
most modern of modern societies because it is the most thorough in its realization of the individualist
impulses of the Renaissance and the radical Reformation. Yet, in reality, it is now the most corporate
of societies, teeming with franchised governments large and small: towns, state governments, and
the federal government (franchised by "the People"), but also and especially our myriad for-profit
and non-profit corporations (business firms, churches, foundations, and other "non-governmental,"
yet actually quite governmental, associations).
Our ability to come to grips with our current predicament requires as its first step a fundamental
reworking of our picture of modern society. Ours is not the world of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.
It is a world in which the means of production and the means of rule are owned by juridical entities,
not natural persons. A world wherein control is exercised by officeholders, not owners; wherein the
officeholders-of corporate government no less than of civil government-dodge direct economic and
legal responsibility for the consequences of their control; and wherein the officeholders are therefore
supposed to be guided by a fiduciary duty to the organization's authorized purposes, not by
individual self-interest. This is the world we inhabit, and it is a world that falls into dysfunction
and exploitation when neoliberal categories and prescriptions are imposed upon it.
This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer
2017): 58–71.
Notes
1 See Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, eds., The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making
of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009).
2 For further detail on this view of corporations, see my "Beyond Public and Private:
Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political Science Review 107, no.
1 (Feb. 2013): 139–58.
3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, in Four Books , vol.
1 (1753; Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1893), 297, 324; see also 180–81.
4 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
, vol. 2 of The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1976), pt. 2, pp. 225–30, 246–47.
5 William Lazonick, "Profits without Prosperity," Harvard Business Review 92,
no. 9 (Sept. 2014): 46–55.
6 Ibid.
7 Erin El Issa, "2016 American Household Credit Card Debt Study," NerdWallet
, https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/average-credit-card-debt-household/.
8 Ibid.; Scott Dylan, "American Credit Card Debt at Record High-Should You Be Worried?,"
Get , May 24, 2016, https://www.get.com/news/american-credit-card-debt/; Quentin Fottrell,
"Most Americans Are One Paycheck Away from the Street," MarketWatch , January 7, 2015, https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07.
9 Pauline Maier, "The Revolutionary Origins of the American Corporation," William
and Mary Quarterly 50, no. 1 (Jan. 1993): 51–84.
David Ciepley is associate professor of political science at the University of Denver. He
is the author of Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism (Harvard University Press, 2006) as
well as of "Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political
Science Review 107, no. 1 (February 2013): 139–58.
Weyrich first aired his conception of Cultural Marxism in a 1998 speech to the
Civitas Institute's
Conservative
Leadership Conference , later repeating this usage in his widely syndicated
Culture War
Letter . [64]
[66]
[67]
At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural
Marxism for The
Free Congress Foundation ; in it Lind identifies the presence of
homosexuals on television
as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered
a coalition of "blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution.
[55]
[63]
[68]
Lind has since published his own depiction of a fictional Cultural Marxist apocalypse.
[69]
[70]
Lind and Weyrich's writings on this subject advocate fighting what they perceive as Cultural
Marxism with "a vibrant
cultural conservatism
" composed of "retroculture" fashions from the past, a return to rail systems as public transport
and an agrarian culture of
self-reliance modeled after the Amish
. [55]
[70]
[71] [72]
[73]
[74] [75]
[
excessive citations ] Paul Weyrich and his protégé Eric Heubeck later openly advocated
for a more direct form of "taking over political structures" by the "New Traditionalist Movement"
in his 2001 paper
The
Integration of Theory and Practice written for Weyrich's
Free Congress Foundation
.
[76] [77]
[78]
In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled "Political Correctness: The
Frankfurt School" . [53]
Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film
"CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" . [79]
The intellectual historian
Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:
"... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical
right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on YouTube, which
feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly
simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual
liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are
ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social
Research who came to America in the 1930's." [53]
Dr. Heidi Beirich likewise claims the conspiracy theory is used to
demonize various conservative
"bêtes noires" including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators,
environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationalists." [80]
The Southern
Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech to a
Holocaust denial conference
on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt
School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to "question whether the
Holocaust occurred" and suggests he was present in an official capacity for the
Free Congress Foundation
"to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis". [84]
[85]
Adherents of the theory often seem to mean that the existence of things like modern
feminism , anti-white racism,
and sexualization are dependent
on the Frankfurt School, even though these processes and movements predate the 1920s. Although the
theory became more widespread in the late 1990s and through the 2000s, the modern iteration of the
theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political
Correctness'", published in
Fidelio Magazine
by the Schiller
Institute . [53]
[86] [87] The Schiller Institute, a branch of the
LaRouche movement ,
further promoted the idea in 1994. [88] The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted
Modernism
in the arts as a form of
Cultural pessimism
, and shaped the
Counterculture
of the 1960s (such as the British pop band
The Beatles ) after the
Wandervogel of the
Ascona commune .
[86] The Larouche movement is otherwise mostly known for believing that the
British Empire still exists,
is trying to take control of the world (mostly, but not exclusively by economical means), and, among
other things, also controls the
global drug trade
. [89]
[90]
More recently, the Norwegian terrorist
Anders Behring Breivik
included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence" , which
along with The Free
Congress Foundation 's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" was e-mailed
to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before
the 2011 bomb blast in
Oslo for which Breivik was responsible. [91]
[92] [93]
Segments of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's
manifesto. [94]
Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated, "Next to the global dimension
of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which
lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy". [54]
Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war
German concept of Cultural
Bolshevism locating it as part of the
degeneration theory
that aided in
Hitler's rise to power . [95]
William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that "It [Cultural Marxism]
is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to
World War I." [85]
Back in 2011 VDARE posted a
commentary of mine on the legitimacy of the "Cultural Marxist" concept. (I reluctantly accepted
the term only because I couldn't think of a better one.)
As I pointed out, this ideology was very far from orthodox Marxism and was viewed by
serious
Marxists as a kind of bastard child. Yet many of those designated as "Cultural Marxists" still
viewed themselves as classical Marxists and some still do.
Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the bourgeoisie as a counterrevolutionary class. Like orthodox
Marxists, they viewed the world, arguably simplistically, in terms of interest groups and power
relationships. Like orthodox Marxists-whose break from Victorian classical liberalism in this
respect was shocking in a way that is easily overlooked after the totalitarian experience of the
twentieth century-they explicitly eschewed debate in favor of reviling and if possible repressing
their opponents. (This is fundamental to the Marxist method: although
it claims to be "scientific"
, it is in fact an a priori value system that
rejects debate and its concomitant, "bourgeois science".
Hence Political Correctness-the
most prominent
product of "cultural Marxism" .) Like orthodox Marxist, they supported, at least in principle,
a socialist i.e. government-controlled economy. Like orthodox Marxists, they inclined, in varying
degrees, toward the Communist side during the Cold War. (
Marcuse , who
cheered the
Soviet suppression
of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, was an outright Stalinist-as I can confirm from personal
knowledge as his onetime student.)
These disciples of the Frankfurt School, like Marx, were eager to replace what they defined as
bourgeois society by a new social order. In this envisaged new order, humankind would experience
true equality for the first time. This would be possible because, in a politically and socially reconstructed
society, we would no longer be alienated from our real selves, which had been warped by the inequalities
that existed until now.
But unlike authentic Marxists, Cultural Marxists have been principally opposed to the culture
of bourgeois societies -- and only secondarily to their material arrangements.
Homophobia ,
nationalism , Christianity,
masculinity
, and anti-Semitism have been the prime villains in the Cultural Marxist script.
This is especially true as one moves from the philosophy of the interwar German founders of the
Frankfurt school, like Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, to the second generation.
This second generation is represented by
Jürgen
Habermas and most of the multicultural theorists ensconced in Western universities.
For these more advanced Cultural Marxists, the
crusade against
capitalism has been increasingly subordinated to the war against "prejudice" and "discrimination."
They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because
it will bring the working class to power, but to fight "racism," "fascism," and the other residues
of the Western past.
If they can't accomplish such radical change, Cultural Marxists are happy to work toward revolutionizing
our consciousness with the help of Leftist moneybags–
hedge fund managers, Mark
Zuckerberg
etc. Ironically, nationalizing productive forces and the creation of a workers' state, i.e. the
leftovers from classical Marxism, turn out to be the most expendable part of their revolutionary
program, perhaps because of the collapse of the embarrassing collapse of
command economies
in the Soviet bloc
. Instead, what is essential to Cultural Marxism is the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures,
the
obliteration of
gender roles and the utter devastation of "the
patriarchal
family."
Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus
even
with Paris burning , National Review was still
attacking the Right . In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for
Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a
"socialist" because she "supports protectionism." Macron's actual onetime membership in the Socialist
Party, and his view that there was
no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [
French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron , April 24, 2017].
Conservatism Inc. goes along because these goals are partially achieved through corporate capitalists,
who actively push Leftist social agendas and punish entire communities if they're insufficiently
enthusiastic about gay marriage, gay scout leaders, transgendered rest rooms, sanctuary cities etc..
Wedded as it is to a clichéd defense of the "free market," the Beltway Right not only won't oppose
this plutocratic agenda, but instead offers tax cuts to the wealthiest and most malevolent actors.
It is because Cultural Marxism can co-exist with our current economic and political structure
that our so-called "conservatives" are far more likely to align with the New Left than the Old Right.
The behavior of our own captains of industry shows the rot is deep and that multiculturalism is very
much part of American "liberal democratic" thinking, even informing our bogus conservatism. "Conservatism"
is now defined as waging endless wars in the name of
universalist
values that any other generation would have
called radically leftist. And Cultural Marxists themselves now define what we call "Western values"-for
example, accepting homosexuality
The takeover is so complete, we might even say "Cultural Marxism" has outlived its usefulness
as a label or as a description of a hostile foreign ideology. Instead, we're dealing with "conservatives,"
who are, in many ways, more extreme and more destructive than the Frankfurt School itself.
Many conservatives seem to believe Cultural Marxism is just a foreign eccentricity somehow smuggled
into our country. Allan Bloom's "
conservative " bestseller The Closing of the American Mind [
PDF ]
contended that multiculturalism was just another example of "The German Connection." This is
ludicrous.
Case in point: unlike Horkheimer, or my onetime teacher Herbert Marcuse, leading writers within
Conservatism Inc. are sympathetic to something like
gay marriage . These include:
Indeed, homosexual liberation is so central to modern conservatism that the Beltway Right's pundits
urge American soldiers to impose it at bayonet point around the world. Kirchick complains we haven't
pressed the Russian "thug" Vladimir Putin hard enough to accept such "conservative" features of public
life as gay pride parades. [
Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom , by
James Kirchick, Foreign Policy, January 3, 2014]
Another frequent
contributor
to National Review , Jillian Kay Melchior, expressed concern that American withdrawal
from Ukraine might expose that region to greater Russian control and thereby diminish rights for
the transgendered. [
Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom , New York Post,
October 8, 2015]
If that's how our Respectable Right reacts to social issues, then it may be ridiculous to continue
denouncing the original Cultural Marxists. Our revolutionary thinking has whizzed past those iconoclastic
German Jews who created the Frankfurt Institute in the 1920s and then moved their enterprise to the
US in the 1930s. Blaming these long-dead intellectuals for our present aberrations may be like blaming
Nazi atrocities on Latin fascists in 1920. We're better served by examining those who selectively
adopted the original model to find out what really happened.
At this point we should ask not whether the Frankfurt School continues to cast a shadow over us
but instead ask why are "conservatives" acquiescing to or even championing reforms more radical than
anything one encounters in Adorno and Horkheimer?
Admittedly, Conservatism Inc. has drifted so far to the Left that one no longer blinks in surprise
when a
respected conservative journalist extolls Leon Trotsky and the Communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade
in the Spanish Civil War. Yet it's still startling to see just how far left the Beltway
"Right" has moved on social issues. Even more noteworthy is how unwilling the movement is to see
any contradiction between this process and the claim they are "conservatives."
And let's not pretend that Conservatism Inc. is simply running a "Big Tent." Those who
direct the top-down
Beltway Right are eager to reach out to the Left, providing those they recruit share their belligerent
interventionist foreign policy views and do nothing to offend neoconservative benefactors,
while purging everything on their right .
This post-Christian, post-bourgeois consensus is now centered in the US and in affiliate Western
countries and transmitted through our culture industry, educational system, Deep-State bureaucracy,
and Establishment political parties.
The Beltway Right operates like front parties under the old Soviet system. Like those parties,
our Establishment Right tries to "fit in" by dutifully undermining those to its the Right and slowly
absorbing the social positions and
heroes of the
Left .
Occasionally it catches hell for not moving fast enough to the Left. But this only bolsters the
image of Conservatism, Inc. as defenders of traditional America against the Left-an image that it
won't lose even as it veers farther in the direction of its supposed adversary.
In short, Conservatism Inc. is not just a scam-but it's become a Cultural Marxist puppet. And
the
Dissident Right consists of those who can see through it.
Years ago, while working in an Australian state
public service department, we considered 'Yes Minister'
to be a documentary, and used it amongst ourselves
as training material.
Yes, Minister was a neoliberal attack on government
as such. It set the "entrepreneurial" political
hero/leader against the corrupt "civil service".
It made the latter the "deep state", thereby tainting
forever the welfare state as an evil hidden conspiracy
that (mysteriously) pandered to the meritocratically
worthless. If that is what you mean by "Deep State"
then you can have it.
It is now known that a perfection of planned
layout is achieved only by institutions on the point
of collapse . [P]erfection of planning is a symptom
of decay. During a period of exciting discovery
or progress there is no time to plan the perfect
headquarters. The time for that comes later, when
all the important work has been done. Perfection,
we know, is finality; and finality is death.
Following this line of reasoning, it seems to me that the US military establishment
has been in decline ever since the Pentagon was built and the temporary Navy Dept.
buildings erected on the National Mall were razed. Being that the Pentagon opened
in 1943 and the buildings on the Mall were razed in 1970, which roughly coincides
with our costly imperial adventures in Korea and Vietnam, I think Parkinson's Law
#6 is dead on here.
"... Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces." No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe. The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission. ..."
"... Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda. ..."
"... When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption, the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. ..."
"... For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products, but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration. Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for. ..."
"... But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve" and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example, overtime rules -- using the same old framework. ..."
"... An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory -- it's an infectious meme. ..."
"... Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes. ..."
"... It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople. But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real economists. ..."
"... And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed, not the blasé and misleading popularizers. ..."
"So I wonder if economism was really as unrealistic and useless as Kwak seems to imply.
Did countries that resisted economism -- Japan, for example, or France [Germany?] -- do better
for their poor and middle classes than the U.S.? Wages have stagnated in those countries, and
inequality has increased, even as those countries remain poorer than the U.S. Did the U.S.'s
problems really all come from economism, or did forces such as globalization and technological
change play a part? Cross-country comparisons suggest that the deregulation and tax cuts of
the 1980s and 1990s, although ultimately excessive, probably increased economic output somewhat."
Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces."
No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe.
The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission.
libezkova -> Peter K.... , -1
Thank you !
Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is
very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda.
I think it is proper to view Economism as a flavor of Lysenkoism. As such it is not very effective
in acquiring the dominant position and suppressing of dissent, but it also can be very damaging.
...When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption,
the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. For far too
many years, free-marketers have gotten away with winning debates by just sitting back and saying
"Oh yeah? Show me the market failure!" That deck-stacking has long forced public intellectuals
on the left have to work twice as hard as those safely ensconced in think tanks on the free-market
right, and given the latter a louder voice in public life than their ideas warrant.
It's also true that simple theories, especially those we learn in our formative years, can
maintain an almost unshakeable grip on our thinking.
For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products,
but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining
both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration.
Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for.
But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve"
and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example,
overtime rules -- using the same old framework.
An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory
-- it's an infectious meme.
Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories
for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic
econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes.
It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the
words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople.
But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street
Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real
economists.
And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced
by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed,
not the blasé and misleading popularizers.
... ... ...
Russia and China have given up communism not because they stopped having working classes, but
because it became obvious that their communist systems were keeping them in poverty. And Americans
are now starting to question economism because of declining median income, spiraling inequality
and a huge financial and economic crisis.
Economism is
reduction of all
social facts to
economic
dimensions. The term is often used to criticize economics as an
ideology, in which
supply and
demand are the only important factors in decisions, and outstrip or permit ignoring all
other factors.
It is believed to be a side effect of
neoclassical economics and blind faith in an "invisible
hand" or "laissez-faire"
means of making decisions, extended far beyond controlled and regulated markets, and used to
make political and military decisions.
Conventional ethics would play no role in
decisions under pure economism, except insofar as supply would be withheld, demand curtailed,
by moral choices of individuals. Thus, critics of economism insist on
political and other
cultural dimensions in
society.
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you !
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
That's not so much about Eurocentric modernism as America-centric neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?" demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist Joan Robinson. ..."
"... Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists: a society of hustlers. ..."
"... how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. ..."
"... he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become too high? ..."
"... "That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ..."
"... Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken. Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant of the struggles against heresy. ..."
"... Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a description of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day. ..."
"... I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly of their ways, and become normal humans. ..."
"... So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people, ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that had just been destroyed. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way or another, they get flattened. ..."
"... I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices in "morality". ..."
"... At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did. ..."
"... "They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression and better weapons. ..."
"... It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status, things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence, an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb. ..."
"... Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to win. But when all resources ..."
"... I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire. I propose hockey. Beats starting a war . ..."
"... When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa (Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election). ..."
"... The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously "It would be a good idea". ..."
"... I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization. But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc. ..."
"... I believe that one element of modern life that should be removed forever is the infinite search for maximizing profits. ..."
"... On more than one occasion I've compared the rent-seeking profit mongers to Molocks that cultivate us milder Eloi and cannabalize us. ..."
"... But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in THEM anyway. ..."
"... Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory (yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility. We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different, at best. ..."
"... Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark Age be? ..."
"... Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome, or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar institution have we now? ..."
"... Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful. ..."
"... The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm. ..."
"... I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism, free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time. ..."
"... But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems, the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis. ..."
"... IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing. ..."
"... Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent seeking. ..."
"... Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations. ..."
"... It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument, but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to the blight of NeoLiberalism ..."
"... The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage. But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise, things have reached an unlovely pass. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... For further reading, I strongly recommend John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards". ..."
"... I think that people who are interested in how the Enlightenment may or may not have contributed to the problems of modernity would do well to read Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity , by Darrin McMahon. Another book of value is The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters , by Anthony Pagden. ..."
"... I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West". ..."
Across the globe, a collective freak-out spanning the whole political system is picking up steam
with every new "surprise" election, rush of tormented souls across borders, and tweet from the star
of America's great unreality show, Donald Trump.
But what exactly is the force that seems to be pushing us towards Armageddon? Is it capitalism
gone wild? Globalization? Political corruption? Techno-nightmares?
Rajani Kanth, a political economist, social thinker, and poet , goes beyond any of these
explanations for the answer. In his view, what's throwing most of us off kilter - whether we think
of ourselves as on the left or right, capitalist or socialist -was birthed 400 years ago during the
period of the Enlightenment. It's a set of assumptions, a particular way of looking at the world
that pushed out previous modes of existence, many quite ancient and time-tested, and eventually rose
to dominate the world in its Anglo-American form.
We're taught to think of the Enlightenment as the blessed end to the Dark Ages, a splendid blossoming
of human reason. But what if instead of bringing us to a better world, some of this period's key
ideas ended up producing something even darker?
Kanth argues that this framework, which he calls Eurocentric modernism, is collapsing, and unless
we understand why and how it has distorted our reality, we might just end up burnt to a crisp as
this misanthropic Death Star starts to bulge and blaze in its dying throes.
A Mass Incarceration of Humanity
Kanth's latest book, Farewell to Modernism: On Human Devolution in the Twenty-First Century , tells the history
of a set of bad ideas. He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student
in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline,
the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from
start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?"
demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist
Joan Robinson.
Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly
self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species
capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists:
a society of hustlers.
Using his training in history and cultural theory, Kanth dedicated himself to investigating
how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially
asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. Eurocentric
modernism, he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every
expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For
every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become
too high?
The Creed of Capture
The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence to
achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the welfare
of community and society.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to the Western
spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into song, calling on
the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From the Eurocentric
modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly do it so that we can
say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach of somebody else." Hooray for
me!
"That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal
glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly
by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
Sounds bad, but didn't Eurocentric modernism also give us our great democratic ideals of equality
and liberty to elevate and protect us?
Maybe these notions are not really our salvation, suggests Kanth. He notes that when we replace
the vital ties of kinship and community with abstract contractual relations, or when we find that
the only sanctioned paths in life are that of consumer or producer, we become alienated and depressed
in spirit. Abstract rights like liberty and equality turn out to be rather cold comfort. These ideas,
however lofty, may not get at the most basic human wants and needs. .
... ... ...
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus of
reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
"The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence
to achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the
welfare of community and society."
Kanth hasn't dealt much with the wild skepticism of Enlightenment and modernist thinkers: That
would put a strain on such simplistic thinking. He's never heard of Kant or Rousseau? Pascal?
He's never even read Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach"? Dickens? A speech by Abraham Lincoln? The
novels of Jane Austen? Maybe some articles by Antonio Gramsci? The Leopard by Tomasi di Lampedusa?
Anything about Einstein? Or even Freud for that matter? Looked at a painting or etching or work
in ceramic by Picasso?
Just because economics has devolved into looting and excuse-making for looting isn't a critique
of the cultural and scientific flowering that were part of the Enlightenment and Modernism. Are
we really supposed to think that Milton Friedman and his delusions have destroyed all aspects
of the enormous changes since 1600 or so? And I, for one, don't want to backslide into the Baroque–when
states used their power for religious wars so virulent that Silesia and Alsace were depopulated.
Alienation is not the name of a river in Egypt BTW, Did any of your examples lead to anything
other than this?
The sum of individuals adds up to the bizarre creature we call "culture." A flower in the air,
to be sure.
They didn't even have food delivery! This post isn't the best evah in the history of NC - I
mean it shouldn't be censored or taken down or anything and everybody has a right to an opinion,
but "Oy Vey what a shock to a reader's delicate intellectual sensibilities."
You wonder if it's Beer Goggles that are being looked through or if this is a case of transference
and projection. The fact that the post author is a poet raises suspicion, since they aren't the
most reliable sources when it come so sober factual analysis.
Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken.
Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church
Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant
of the struggles against heresy.
If one is going to criticize societies for lacking "moral economies", it's not just the European
(and American) based societies that need to be targeted. Other societies have deep failures that
extend back for millennia, such as the caste system of India.
Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a
description of the Enlightenment.
Been a while since I read Candide , but the end where he meets the world famous sage
and asks for the secret of happiness in a terrible world only to be told 'Tend your own garden'
and then having the gate slammed in his face has always stuck with me.
You could interpret that to mean isolate yourself from your fellow human beings and just look
out for yourself, but I don't think that's what Voltaire was getting at.
Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption
of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll
take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day.
Perhaps, beyond anthropology, there are lessons in evolutionary biology. Individual humans
are fairly weak animals. Our ancestors were obligated to "huddle" to survive, or as Richard Dawkins
might suggest, huddling, banding together in families and groups, was an evolutionarily successful
strategy. Those well adapted to communal living were more likely to survive, so that tendency
was selected for. However, "cheaters" can also survive. That is, it is not uncommon in the natural
world to find individuals and groups of individuals who cheat the group – expend less energy to
reproduce, such as male sunfish that display the secondary sexual characteristics of females,
so are not driven off by nest building males, make a mad dash in to fertilize eggs when a real
female shows up, but provides no protection for the young – the adult male does that. In human
culture, there are also cheaters, those who provide little to the larger society, yet reap a disproportionate
level of resources.
So, learning more of our cultural roots and adopting positive measures for social cohesion
is a good idea, but much like Jesus' view that the poor will always be with us, cheaters, from
banksters to dictators, will too.
As Kanth sees it, most of our utopian visions carry on the errors and limitations born of
a misguided view of human nature. That's why communism, as it was practiced in the Soviet Union
and elsewhere, projected a materialist perspective on progress while ignoring the natural human
instinct for autonomy- the ability to decide for ourselves where to go and what to say and
create. On flip side, capitalism runs against our instinct to trust and take care of each other.
I think this paragraph speaks volumes for transitioning to a society with a BGI with libertarian
socialist leanings. Let people be free to create what they are passionate about while allowing
humans to express their innate desire to care for one another without it signifying weakness or
at their time own personal expense. I don't think this approach necessarily precludes rockets
to Mars either. The engineers who are passionate will still get together and build one. It may
take a little longer if they can't convince others to help but hopefully this will foster more
cooperative approaches and less viewing of other humans as consumables.
Libertarianism and libertarian socialism are two different things. Libertarianism is a less
authoritative conservatism while libertarian socialism is a less authoritative social democracy.
Think Chomsky, not Ron Paul. Or think of it as a more relaxed Bernie who thinks things should
be done on a smaller, more local scale.
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus
of reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco
after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly
of their ways, and become normal humans.
So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people,
ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that
had just been destroyed.
I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way
or another, they get flattened.
I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism
and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were
writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices
in "morality".
At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy
the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to
care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did.
The most frequent response from professors and classmates to my thesis? But those clans, tribes,
families, etc., didn't accomplish much, did they? As if the only reason for humanity's existence
was to compete against itself
Needless to say, I didn't stick with Philosophy ..
And we need new syntheses, at which this is an attempt.
It's not a stretch to say the trend since the renaissance has been to exalt the individual.
Kanth is aiming for a communitarian philosophy. An interesting departure point for discussion.
I don't see what people find so offensive.
"They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression
and better weapons.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this
one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When
the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and
die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status,
things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence,
an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb.
Capitalism made the stakes too high. But it was designed by the winners.
You might argue that there were plenty of "hopeless losers" in the systems that preceded capitalism
- the orphans, elderly crones, and beggars without livelihoods who used to wander the hedgerows
in medieval times. We have more resources now which also means no excuses.
Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought
them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for
status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to
win. But when all resources are restricted to the market, it's unjust to exclude any
group from access. Once again the stakes are too high. Social democracies are better places to
live for exactly this reason.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect.
I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop
a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire.
I propose hockey. Beats starting a war .
When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which
the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa
(Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a
representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially
male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election).
I take this example to point out that both Lynn Parramore and Rajni Kanth declaring in a version
of mumbo-jumbo are sadly wrong-modernism has always been skin-deep excepting in accommodating
the technological element in the tone of life. Voltaire and Rousseau aside, both Kanth and Parramore
know which side of the mumbo-jumbo bread is their butter; even bemoaning the collapsing supposed
ruins of modernism they do not fail to take advantage! "Eurocentric modernism has unhinged us
from our human nature" asserts Kanth in his "book" but I would like to bluntly ask him: Please
define your "us" and "our" in that proposition and clarify if poor Indians like Yours Truly find
a dot in that set.
The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of
my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist
asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously
"It would be a good idea".
It does not at all. This is the price one pays as an innocent reader by reading social science
mumbo jumbo which is so irksome. It lacks the grace of the real mumbo jumbo too. Kanth is bluffing;
the author misunderstands his stupid linguistic constructions of Kanth and incomprehension and
chaos follow. The whole article seems to be a bluff about a bluff(the book).
I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization.
But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a
purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky
little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told
her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc.
We have been very successful as a species; surviving all of our own inquisitions, pogroms,
hallucinations and yes, this is a serious situation we are in. We might even try to guide ourselves
out of it, using science and technology, as we huddle.
I suspect there was a fatal error long, long ago: you lend me your ram so my ewe can have offspring.
If there are twins, we each get one; if not, we agree upon future breeding rights and grazing
areas. After generations of this sort of breeding activity, I have in my mind the notion that
there is a 'natural increase' from lending or swapping.
Along comes a scribe with a tablet, whom I have now hired to list the number of my flocks (wealth
on the hoof); I lend you forms of wealth (rams, ewes, oxen, axes, boats) , and the scribe assumes
there must be some 'natural increase' as the outcome of this lending and swapping. Consequently,
the scribe carves cuneiform markings to represent what we might call 'compound interest' that
result from lending and swapping of non-biological resources - despite the fact that if you sit
two clay tablets in the sun, they do not (and never will!) create an additional clay tablet. Ditto
heaps of dollar bills; it's not the money that creates increase; it's the assumption of 'increase'
(originating in breeding activity of flocks and herds) that makes the money generate surplus -
not any property of those scraps of paper themselves.
BTW: FWIW, double entry bookkeeping seems to trace the earliest period of modernism, which
IMVHO adds heft to Kanth's argument about something shifting probably earlier than 400 years
ago.
It's possible that Michael Hudson has covered this; if so, I've not had time to read it yet.
I hope to in future. David Graeber's work on redemption ('buying back' someone enslaved or indentured)
and his anthropological findings also lend heft to Kanth's analysis.
"He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering
why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always
escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish.""
But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure
to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in
THEM anyway.
I think our problems do not stem from any theories or ideologies, they are the predictable
result of human nature – specifically of the fact that the balance between the loving side of
human nature and the aggressive side is not evenly distributed among individuals. It is precisely
the most aggressive among us who most desire, and work the hardest, to dominate and control others.
I had the same experience as he had with economics with law, ok I only studied it when studying
business and that does not a lawyer make, but it made no sense for me. But I do think I maybe
just have the wrong kind of brain for it, expect a logic that isn't there.
Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory
(yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine
if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can
walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford
to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility.
We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different,
at best.
Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark
Age be? I don't think you can get rid of Modernism very easily, for certain parts would survive.
Science and tech, for example. Ideas of surveillance and control. But along with this, new prejudices,
new superstitions, perhaps? What perverse new form of religion or philosophy might arise from
the ashes of our civilization?
Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome,
or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople
provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar
institution have we now?
Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon
that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful.
The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with
spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to
the Western spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into
song, calling on the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From
the Eurocentric modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly
do it so that we can say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach
of somebody else." Hooray for me!
Many would part company with Kanth over the above characterization. There are many reasons
why people climb mountains and ford streams that do not include, or even consider, that element
of exclusive personal achievement. Some might even aver that climbing and fording and so many
other human activities are done "because it is there", while others appreciate a spiritual or
other inspirational aspect.
Will we climbers and forders be told that we are selfish or otherwise deficient or on the wrong
side of history or whatever the mal du jour is because we like a little bit of hygge
or Gemütlichkeit as we live our lives?
Quite that is indeed the point where I stopped reading and started skimming someone who mistakes
metaphors in a musical for physical actions is not going to enlighten my world (no matter how
much I dislike the film).
climbing every mountain and fording every stream is probably impossible in the literal sense
(aren't there way too many streams for this? and mountains probably too), and certainly it is
impossible in the metaphoric one.
I don't see why poor Julie Andrews, of all people, has to be singled out here as exemplifying
malign post-Enlightenment discourses of proprietorship and exploitation. That's just mean
. Surely those ideologies are better examined through a close reading of the Shamen's inexcusable
'90s electro hit "Move Every Mountain"?
I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism,
free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time.
But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none
of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems,
the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis.
IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial
aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto
fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing.
While it's obvious how this thesis deflates modern capitalism, it would also appear to me that
the idea of refocusing on "kinship and community" would present a challenge to the "global solidarity"
mentality underlying most leftist thinking as well. You cannot simultaneously have an emphasis
on the huddled community, while also arguing that workers worldwide have a deeper and more important
connection than the business owner and his or her employees (assuming both are from within the
same community, natch). Either you assume humans have a universal commonness, which effectively
obliterates the notion of community, or you accept humans tend towards tribalism, which both discounts
any notion of creating a global, uniform leftist economics, but also suggests a troubling tendency
towards xenophobia.
Good point, "kinship and community" are analogous to tribalism and nationalism on a larger
scale unless you rephrase it to mean kinship with your family and neighbors on the local level,
and with humanity on a national/global level. Unfortunately, some of our current liberal globalists
seem to be forgetting the part about local kinship and community while embracing global humanity.
I dunno, may have something to do with cheaper labor abroad.
Partly, but there's also an association in the minds of many liberals and leftists of localized
control and thinking equating with oppression, historically. Things like segregation, discrimination,
violations of the separation of church and state, anti-labor employment & worksite laws, etc.
I think Kanth is quick to criticize materialism and scientific progress for all our ills while
seeming to have missed the horrid standards of living in his anthropological studies prior to
scientific progress with enlightenment principles over theocracy. I'd like to know what the longevity
of per-enlightenment citizens was compared to today. In fact, longevity in this country around
1900 was still in the mid 40's for most.
What I find would have been a better argument is to focus his critique not on scientific progress,
but on how there always seems to be a certain small minority of the population which seems to
have an out sized voice in how we choose to self govern. What we seem to be losing today is the
silent majority of voices who are for universal health care, not eroding further entitlements,
bodily security as well as economic security while still being able to encourage those who chose
to take risks and put themselves through more work and strain to be fairly rewarded.
The problem as I see it today, is that the pendulum, both politically, and socially, has swung
too far towards the selfish individualist.
The problem with how science is seen in a modernist context is two-fold. The "blind faith"
leads people to see it as all-encompassing, all-powerful, and not recognizing its scope and where
that scope ends. Ergo, anything that is successfully sold to the public and TPTB as "science"
gets said treatment and is viewed as being unquestionable (like, say, neoclassical economics).
Bruno Latour has been on this for decades in 1991 the book "We Have Never Been Modern" This has been followed by many other books, prizes, invited lectures, and thought exhibition
called Reset Modernity. The book, published last year, is related to the exhibition with that
title. Published by MIT press with 60 authors.
Reset Modernity
Reset Modernity!
Edited by Bruno Latour and Christophe Leclerc
Overview
Modernity has had so many meanings and tries to combine so many contradictory sets of attitudes
and values that it has become impossible to use it to define the future. It has ended up crashing
like an overloaded computer. Hence the idea is that modernity might need a sort of reset. Not
a clean break, not a "tabula rasa," not another iconoclastic gesture, but rather a restart
of the complicated programs that have been accumulated, over the course of history, in what
is often called the "modernist project." This operation has become all the more urgent now
that the ecological mutation is forcing us to reorient ourselves toward an experience of the
material world for which we don't seem to have good recording devices.
Reset Modernity! is organized around six procedures that might induce the readers to reset
some of those instruments. Once this reset has been completed, readers might be better prepared
for a series of new encounters with other cultures. After having been thrown into the modernist
maelstrom, those cultures have difficulties that are just as grave as ours in orienting themselves
within the notion of modernity. It is not impossible that the course of those encounters might
be altered after modernizers have reset their own way of recording their experience of the
world.
At the intersection of art, philosophy, and anthropology, Reset Modernity! has assembled
close to sixty authors, most of whom have participated, in one way or another, in the Inquiry
into Modes of Existence initiated by Bruno Latour. Together they try to see whether such a
reset and such encounters have any practicality. Much like the two exhibitions Iconoclash and
Making Things Public, this book documents and completes what could be called a "thought exhibition:"
Reset Modernity! held at ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe from April to August 2016.
Like the two others, this book, generously illustrated, includes contributions, excerpts, and
works from many authors and artists.
Seems to me that the insight into the relevancy of anthropology vis a vis economics is a product
of science. And Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent
seeking.
Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different
side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations.
It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument,
but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It
was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The
author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the
valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment.
This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to
the blight of NeoLiberalism. Rather, there were those, such as Burke, or some of our "Founding
Fathers" who were students of history, and while discriminating observers of the deleterious elements
of human nature, they were also cognizant of the more helpful elements of that same human nature.
They, however, tended toward the view that those helpful elements required deliberate nurturance
in order to come to the fore. Some of this nurturance could be achieved by partially neutralizing
the deleterious elements by balancing interests (you weren't going to get rid of the propensities,
but you could limit the scope of their play by pitting societal forces one against the other in
political structures, vide the doctrine of separation of powers), while nurturance could
also be achieved through perpetuation of those societal institutions that address the individual
conscience and behaviors like religious doctrine and examples.
The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing
currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage.
But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout
much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise,
things have reached an unlovely pass.
But it would be incorrect to solely blame Enlightenment themes for where we are today. Much
of what was presumed to be necessary to the proper, humane functioning of the ideal Enlightenment
society has been pushed aside in favor of the degraded every-man-for-himself, homo economicus
scourge that holds sway.
Joseph de Maistre, the conservative critic of Enlightenment values, deserves far more blame
for the horrors of modernity than do Voltaire or his like minded colleagues. And I can't even
find de Maistre mentioned in the index of Saul's book.
Thanks for mentioning Joseph de Maistre. I have never heard of him. I think you'd enjoy this
book, nonetheless. Saul doesn't actually "blame" Voltaire. He blames those who came after Voltaire.
For that matter, the bulk of the book is about the 20th century's (mis)interpretation of the Enlightment
project. I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship
of Reason in the West".
Interesting story Waring told when I heard her speak in Toronto – As she boarded a bus at the
airport to travel to her hotel, and a young man (20s) recognized her because the film is shown
to high school students throughout Canada.
And Capital Institute's John Fullerton
FIELD GUIDE TO A REGENERATIVE
ECONOMY Primarily due to reading George Monbiot's inane rejection of the work of Allan Savory
and Capital Institute's work with Grasslands LLC. Brought to me this morning by Nicole Foss and
the Guardian.
And for farmer's and lovers of the land, I couldn't help but hear Wendell Berry, "It all turns
on affection."
Interesting to have these things intersect with this morning's coffee. Thank you.
"... "Precarity" has become a popular way to refer to economic and labor conditions that force people-and particularly low-income service workers-into uncertainty. Temporary labor and flexwork offer examples. ..."
"... Such conditions are not new. As union-supported blue-collar labor declined in the 20th century, the service economy took over its mantle absent its benefits. But the information economy further accelerated precarity. ..."
"... ...Facebook and Google, so the saying goes, make their users into their products-the real customer is the advertiser or data speculator preying on the information generated by the companies' free services. ..."
"... Consider phone answering services. Its simple speech recognition, which was once at the forefront of artificial intelligence, has made them ubiquityous. Yet Dante would need a new circle for a person who said "I just heard you say 5...3...7...is this correct?" ..."
"... Some of these adaptations subtract from our quality of life, as the article nicely describes. Some add to it, e.g we no longer spend time at the mall arranging when and where to meet if we get separated. Some are interesting and hard to evaluate, e.g. Chessplayers' relation to the game has changed radically since computers became good at it. ..."
"... And there is one I find insidious: the homogeneization of human activity and even thought. The information we ALL get on a subject will be what sorts to the top among google answers; the rest might as well not exist, much like newspaper articles buried in a back page. ..."
"... And on the economic front, the same homogeneization, with giant multinationals and crossmarketing deals. You'll be in a country with great food, like Turkey, get into your rented Toyota, say "I want dinner", and end up at a Domino's because they have a deal with Toyota. ..."
On the Crooked Timber piece: Quiggin makes a very astute observation about 'propertarians' and
Divine Providence in his concluding paragraphs. If one takes it as a matter of faith (religious
or secular) that human activity inherently leads to good outcomes that'll be a huge influence
on how you engage with the world. It blows away humility and restraint. It fosters a sense of
entitlement.
Yep. All roads lead to scapegoating. The anti-social capabilities of base desires and greed are
often paled in comparison to those of detached indifference supported by abstract high-mindedness.
For example, both sides can blame the robots for the loss of decent blue collar jobs.
Not sure that there are "both sides" any more in elite circles. There are at least two types though.
There is very little presence among elites on the progressive side.
"...When spun on its ungeared mechanism, an analogous, glorious measure of towel appears directly
and immediately, as if sent from heaven..."
[This was highly relevant to today's lead article "The Jobs Americans Do:"]
... "Precarity" has become a popular way to refer to economic and labor conditions that
force people-and particularly low-income service workers-into uncertainty. Temporary labor and
flexwork offer examples.
That includes hourly service work in which schedules are adjusted ad-hoc and just-in-time,
so that workers don't know when or how often they might be working. For low-wage food service
and retail workers, for instance, that uncertainty makes budgeting and time-management difficult.
Arranging for transit and childcare is difficult, and even more costly, for people who don't know
when-or if-they'll be working.
Such conditions are not new. As union-supported blue-collar labor declined in the 20th
century, the service economy took over its mantle absent its benefits. But the information economy
further accelerated precarity. For one part, it consolidated existing businesses and made
efficiency its primary concern. For another, economic downturns like the 2008 global recession
facilitated austerity measures both deliberate and accidental. Immaterial labor also rose-everything
from the unpaid, unseen work of women in and out of the workplace, to creative work done on-spec
or for exposure, to the invisible work everyone does to construct the data infrastructure that
technology companies like Google and Facebook sell to advertisers...
[This was very insightful into its own topic of the separation of technology "from serving
human users to pushing them out of the way so that the technologized world can service its own
ends," but I would rather classify that as serving owners of proprietary technology rights.]
...Facebook and Google, so the saying goes, make their users into their products-the real customer
is the advertiser or data speculator preying on the information generated by the companies' free
services. But things are bound to get even weirder than that. When automobiles drive themselves,
for example, their human passengers will not become masters of a new form of urban freedom, but
rather a fuel to drive the expansion of connected cities, in order to spread further the gospel
of computerized automation.
If artificial intelligence ends up running the news, it will not do
so in order to improve citizen's access to information necessary to make choices in a democracy,
but to further cement the supremacy of machine automation over human editorial in establishing
what is relevant...
[THANKS! It was an exceptionally good article in places despite that it wandered a bit off
into the ozone at times.] ...
It hits on one of the reasons why I am less skeptical than Darryl that AI will succeed, an
soon, in all kinds of fields: it may remain stupid in some ways, but we will adapt to it.
Consider phone answering services. Its simple speech recognition, which was once at the forefront
of artificial intelligence, has made them ubiquityous. Yet Dante would need a new circle for a
person who said "I just heard you say 5...3...7...is this correct?"
Some of these adaptations subtract from our quality of life, as the article nicely describes.
Some add to it, e.g we no longer spend time at the mall arranging when and where to meet if we
get separated. Some are interesting and hard to evaluate, e.g. Chessplayers' relation to the game
has changed radically since computers became good at it.
And there is one I find insidious: the homogeneization of human activity and even thought.
The information we ALL get on a subject will be what sorts to the top among google answers; the
rest might as well not exist, much like newspaper articles buried in a back page.
On the political front, Winston will not be necessary, nobody will click through to the old
information, we will all just know that we were always at war with Eurasia.
And on the economic front, the same homogeneization, with giant multinationals and crossmarketing
deals. You'll be in a country with great food, like Turkey, get into your rented Toyota, say "I
want dinner", and end up at a Domino's because they have a deal with Toyota.
There was probably more than one movie about this topic - people not happy with their "peaceful"
but bland, boring, and intellectually stifling environment.
Not too far from Huxley's "Brave New World" actually.
One would think that a Berkeley Prof would be better at
arithmetic, or counting. In the early days, companies did
indeed create tech bureaucracies that offset any gains in
reduction of work force, say back in the 70s, maybe 80s.
Today, these groups number in the tens. Point being, these
are indeed middle class jobs, just no where near the number
of jobs replaced.
Many working- and middle-class Americans believe that
free-trade agreements are why their incomes have stagnated
over the past two decades. So Trump intends to provide them
with "protection" by putting protectionists in charge.
But
Trump and his triumvirate have misdiagnosed the problem.
While globalization is an important factor in the hollowing
out of the middle class, so, too, is automation.
Trump and his team are missing a simple point:
twenty-first-century globalization is knowledge-led, not
trade-led. Radically reduced communication costs have enabled
US firms to move production to lower-wage countries.
Meanwhile, to keep their production processes synced, firms
have also offshored much of their technical, marketing, and
managerial knowhow. This "knowledge offshoring" is what has
really changed the game for American workers.
The information revolution changed the world in ways that
tariffs cannot reverse. With US workers already competing
against robots at home, and against low-wage workers abroad,
disrupting imports will just create more jobs for robots.
Trump should be protecting individual workers, not
individual jobs. The processes of twenty-first-century
globalization are too sudden, unpredictable, and
uncontrollable to rely on static measures like tariffs.
Instead, the US needs to restore its social contract so that
its workers have a fair shot at sharing in the gains
generated by global openness and automation. Globalization
and technological innovation are not painless processes, so
there will always be a need for retraining initiatives,
lifelong education, mobility and income-support programs, and
regional transfers.
By pursuing such policies, the Trump administration would
stand a much better chance of making America "great again"
for the working and middle classes. Globalization has always
created more opportunities for the most competitive workers,
and more insecurity for others. This is why a strong social
contract was established during the post-war period of
liberalization in the West. In the 1960s and 1970s
institutions such as unions expanded, and governments made
new commitments to affordable education, social security, and
progressive taxation. These all helped members of the middle
class seize new opportunities as they emerged.
Over the last two decades, this situation has changed
dramatically: globalization has continued, but the social
contract has been torn up. Trump's top priority should be to
stitch it back together; but his trade advisers do not
understand this.
Thank you ! Social contract is the key. And it was
abolished with the ascendance of neoliberalism with its wolf
eats wolf philosophy of "individual responsibility" (read the
law of jungles in job market).
For some times, while neoliberalism was eating the carcass
of New Deal there was almost no rebellion against it. Even in
2008 none of the top honchos of financial institutions who
caused the disaster went to jail, although rank-and-file
employees of major banks and investment firms did feel very
insecure. "Jump suckers" was the slogan on the corner NYC
cafe close to Wall Street.
This time probably ended now. The problems is that
financial oligarchy does not want to share spoils of their
stealing with anybody.
And yes, communication technologies + huge growth of the
power of personal computers since 1986 are two very important
factors here.
They allowed new level of centralization, which was
impossible before. With the corporate headquarters on a
different continent then factories (among other things) and
teams consisting of members of different continents.
"... People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded. ..."
"... As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface. ..."
You are wrong. Your definition of neoliberalism is formally right and we can argue along those
lines that Hillary is a neoliberal too (Her track record as a senator suggests exactly that),
it is way too narrow.
"One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings."
(see below)
"Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the
state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them."
"In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment
of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe
this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace
toward her ascendancy. People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception
of human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial
so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism
should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on
human beings as capital), which is why this project has become increasingly associated with
suppression of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the kind of
identity politics neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under
the Clintons, of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining,
such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should
be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management
system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages
or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives)."
In this sense Hillary Clinton is 100% dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and neocon ("neoliberal with
the gun"). She promotes so called "neoliberal rationality" a perverted "market-based" rationality
typical for neoliberalism:
== quote ==
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts-in response to demands for reregulation of finance,
for instance-that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding
of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a
revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms.
In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states
are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings.
Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic
theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and
a half centuries.
As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field
is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market.
We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market
fundamentalism," and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation,
i.e., the market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue
that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous
ideologies.
The neoliberal state-actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would
claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an
existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds
their sum-is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the
way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing
to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question
of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e.,
the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is not
how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left
over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become
the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the
form we have classically understood them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about
whether Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will
be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton.
The project of neoliberalism-i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society,
and the self-has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual
entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic
figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in
redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves,
their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams
and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a
half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism
succeeded less well in realizing the "new man."
It cannot be emphasized
enough that neoliberalism is
not
classical liberalism, or a return
to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a
new
thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered
and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it.
Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the
wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality,
unlike the classical liberal state.
I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of
capitalism's long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform
everything
-every object, every living thing, every fact on the
planet-in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any
preceding ideology. Neoliberalism happens to be the ideology-unlike the
three major forerunners in the last 250 years-that has the fortune of
coinciding with technological change on a scale that makes its complete
penetration into every realm of being a possibility for the first time in
human history.
From the early 1930s, when the Great Depression threatened the classical
liberal consensus (the idea that markets were self-regulating, and the state
should play no more than a night-watchman role), until the early 1970s, when
global instability including currency chaos unraveled it,
the democratic world lived under the Keynesian paradigm
: markets were
understood to be inherently unstable, and the interventionist hand of
government, in the form of countercyclical policy, was necessary to make
capitalism work, otherwise the economy had a tendency to get out of whack
and crash.
It's an interesting question if it was the stagflation of the 1970s,
following the unhitching of the United States from the gold standard and the
arrival of the oil embargo, that brought on the neoliberal revolution, with
Milton Friedman
discrediting fiscal policy and advocating a by-the-numbers monetarist policy
,
or if it was neoliberalism itself, in the form of Friedmanite ideas that the
Nixon administration was already pursuing, that made stagflation and the end
of Keynesianism inevitable.
It should be said that neoliberalism thrives on prompting crisis after
crisis, and has proven more adept than previous ideologies at exploiting
these crises to its benefit, which then makes the situation worse, so that
each succeeding crisis only erodes the power of the working class and makes
the wealthy wealthier. There is a certain self-fulfilling aura to
neoliberalism, couched in the jargon of economic orthodoxy, that has
remained immune from political criticism, because of the dogma that was
perpetuated-
by
Margaret Thatcher and her acolytes-that There Is No Alternative (TINA)
.
Neoliberalism is excused for the crises it repeatedly brings on-one can
think of a regular cycle of debt and speculation-fueled emergencies in the
last forty years, such as
the developing country debt overhang of the 1970s
,
the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s
,
the Asian currency crisis of the 1990s
, and the subprime mortgage crisis
of the 2000s-better than any ideology I know of. This is partly because its
very existence as ruling ideology is not even noted by the population at
large, which continues to derive some residual benefits from the welfare
state inaugurated by Keynesianism but has been led to believe by neoliberal
ideologues to think of their reliance on government as worthy of provoking
guilt, shame, and melancholy, rather than something to which they have
legitimate claim.
It is not surprising to find neoliberal multiculturalists-
comfortably
established in the academy
-likewise demonizing, or othering, not
Muslims, Mexicans, or African Americans, but working-class whites (the
quintessential Trump proletariat) who have a difficult time accepting the
fluidity of self-definition that goes well with neoliberalism, something
that we might call the market capitalization of the self.
George W. Bush's useful function was to introduce necessary crisis into a
system that had grown too stable for its own good; he injected desirable
panic, which served as fuel to the fire of the neoliberal revolution. Trump
is an apostate-at least until now-in desiring chaos on terms that do not
sound neoliberal, which is unacceptable; hence
Jeb Bush's
characterization of him as the "candidate of chaos.
" Neoliberalism
loves
chaos, that has been its modus operandi since the early 1970s,
but only the kind of chaos it can direct and control.
To go back to origins, the Great Depression only ended conclusively with
the onset of the second world war, after which Keynesianism had the upper
hand for thirty-five years. But just as the global institutions of
Keynesianism, specifically the IMF and the World Bank, were being founded at
the New Hampshire resort of Bretton Woods in 1944, the founders of the
neoliberal revolution, namely Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton
Friedman,
and
others were forming the Mount Pelerin Society (MPS) at the eponymous Swiss
resort in 1947
, creating the ideology which eventually defeated
Keynesianism and gained the upper hand during the 1970s.
So what exactly is neoliberalism, and how is it different from classical
liberalism, whose final manifestation came under Keynesianism?
Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves,
that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of
human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization,
deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of
government-provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as
human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly
diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions
on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in
transcendent terms, is to be discouraged.
"... People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded. ..."
You are wrong. Your definition of neoliberalism is formally
right and we can argue along those lines that Hillary is a
neoliberal too (Her track record as a senator suggests
exactly that), it is way too narrow.
"One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that
everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of
the market, including the state, civil society, and of
course human beings." (see below)
"Another way to say it is that the state has become the
market, the market has become the state, and therefore
both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically
understood them."
"In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has
been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among
all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal
avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not
articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the
populace toward her ascendancy.
People can perceive
that her ideology is founded on a conception of human
beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as
her opening campaign commercial so overtly depicted),
which means that those who fail to come within the purview
of neoliberalism should be rigorously ostracized,
punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological
arm (a multiculturalism founded on human beings as
capital), which is why this project has become
increasingly associated with suppression of free speech
and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the
kind of identity politics neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous
and absolutely parallel rise, under the Clintons, of both
neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal
disciplining, such as the shaming and exclusion of former
welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should be
able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was
converted to a performance management system designed to
enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant
below-subsistence wages or the loss of parental
responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of
marketplace incentives)."
In this sense Hillary Clinton is 100% dyed-in-the-wool
neoliberal and neocon ("neoliberal with the gun"). She
promotes so called "neoliberal rationality" a perverted
"market-based" rationality typical for neoliberalism:
== quote ==
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts-in response to
demands for reregulation of finance, for instance-that we
have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a
particular understanding of the law, the law as embodying
the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a
revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms.
In this revolution of the law persons have no status
compared to corporations, nation-states are on their way
out, and everything in turn dissolves before the
abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that
everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of
the market, including the state, civil society, and of
course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as
the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic
theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic
politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries.
As the market becomes an abstraction, so does
democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else,
in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not,
however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes
place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot
of confusion-as "market fundamentalism," and while this
may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and
self-presentation, i.e., the market as the ultimate and
only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue
that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market
as we have understood it from previous ideologies.
The neoliberal state-actually, to utter the word state
seems insufficient here, I would claim that a new entity
is being created, which is not the state as we have known
it, but an existence that incorporates potentially all the
states in the world and is something that exceeds their
sum-is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for
individual self-conception in the way that classical
liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree,
were willing to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal
globalization, when it comes to the question of whether
the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent
of globalization, i.e., the corporation, but I am taking
this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is not
how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism,
but whether there is anything left over beyond the new
definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the
state has become the market, the market has become the
state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form
we have classically understood them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people
yet, hence all the confusion about whether Hillary Clinton
is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald
Trump will be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton.
The project of neoliberalism-i.e., the redefinition of
the state, the institutions of society, and the self-has
come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the
need of individual entities to make or break its case. Its
penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic
figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question
its efficacy.
Neoliberals seem very concerned not to have a label. I posit this is because the founders of the
malign ideology didn't want their victims be able to reliably identify them. The deliberately and misleadingly
promote the view of the economy as an isolated scientific subject, like the interior of a test tube,
and treat politics and policy as a sort of exterior force, that can be isolated from the world of the
chemist and pushed off-to-one side. Neoclassic economists consistently and deliberately blinds itself
to politics and the dynamics of power, despite the deep entanglement of politics with everything economic.
"I look at politics and the economy and see one thing, not two things, and I am astonished at the extent
to which economists focus on the part they like to play with intellectually, while deliberately looking
away from what is probably the more important part. "
Notable quotes:
"... when left-wing people say that economists are defenders and supporters of the current order of things, they have a point: ignoring power relationships and their impact on the world supports the continued existence of those relationships. ..."
"... Neoliberalism may have been in part so successful because it appeals to (and tries to explain many things in terms of) a narrative of competition (and assignment of reward and acknowedlgement) by merit. ..."
"... Most people, esp. when young (still largely sheltered) or (still) successful, probably have an exaggerated assessment of their own merit (absolute and relative) - often actively instilled and encouraged by an "enabling" environment. ..."
"... It promises a lake Wobegon of sorts where everybody (even though not all!) are above average, and it is finally recognized. ..."
What Wren-Lewis misses, I think, is that something I've noticed in my roughly a decade of reading
economic blogs on the Internet. Economists have blinkers on. They want to view the economy as an
isolated scientific subject, like the interior of a test tube, and treat politics and policy as a
sort of exterior force, that can be isolated from the world of the chemist and pushed off-to-one
side. It seems fairly clear to me that the two elements--politics and the economy--are obviously
continuously co-mingled, and have all sorts of feedback loops running between them.
The discipline really consistently and deliberately blinds itself to politics and the dynamics
of power, despite the deep entanglement of politics with everything economic. Wren-Lewis admits that
macroeconomists "missed" the impacts of very high financial sector leverage, but finds that now that
economists have noticed it, and suggested remedies, that the power of bank lobby prevents those remedies
from being enacted. But shouldn't the political power of the finance lobby been a part of economic
analysis of the world along with the dangers of the financial sector's use of extreme leverage? Does
he think the two phenomena are unrelated?
Shouldn't economics pay more attention to the ongoing attempts of various groups to orient government
policy in their favor, just like they pay attention to the trade deficit and GDP numbers?
I look at politics and the economy and see one thing, not two things, and I am astonished at the
extent to which economists focus on the part they like to play with intellectually, while deliberately
looking away from what is probably the more important part. Its like economists obsessively focus
on the part that can be studied via numbers (money) and don't' want to think about the part that
is harder to look quantify (political policy). And there is a political issue there, which Mr. Wren-Lewis,
keeps ignoring in his defense of "mainstream economics."
The neoclassical economics tendency of not looking at power relationships makes power imbalances
and their great influence on economics seem like "givens" or "natural endowments", which is clearly
an intellectual sin of omission.
Many people, even within the halls of mainstream economics, note economists are "uncomfortable"
with distributional issues.
Whether they like the implication or not, economists need to acknowledge that this discomfort
has a profoundly conservative intellectual bias, in the sense that it make the status quo arrangement
of society seem "natural" and "normal", when it is obviously humanly constructed and not in any sense
"natural." So when left-wing people say that economists are defenders and supporters of the current
order of things, they have a point: ignoring power relationships and their impact on the world supports
the continued existence of those relationships.
Mr. Wren-Lewis seems like a nice guy, but he needs to take that simple home truth in. I'm not
sure why he seems to struggle so with acknowledging it.
Oh you mean the success of being able to raise asset prices without the growth in wages, make
education costly and unaffordable without student loans, not chargeable under bankruptcy, spruce
up employment figures by not counting the people who have stopped look for jobs because they cannot
find one, make people debt serfs, make savers miserable by keeping interest rates at zero and
making them take risks that they may not want to take though it is picking pennies in front of
a steamroller, keeping wages stagnant for decades and thus impoverishing people.
The list of successes is endless and you should be glad we are NOT talking about them. Because
if we do, the clan called economists might well be torched.
Neoliberalism may have been in part so successful because it appeals to (and tries to explain
many things in terms of) a narrative of competition (and assignment of reward and acknowedlgement)
by merit.
Most people, esp. when young (still largely sheltered) or (still) successful, probably
have an exaggerated assessment of their own merit (absolute and relative) - often actively instilled
and encouraged by an "enabling" environment.
A large part is probably the idea that "markets" are "objective" or at least "impartial" in
bringing out and rewarding merit - also technology and "data driven" technocratic management,
which are attributed "objectivity". All in the explicitly stated or implied service of impartially
recognizing merit and its lack.
It promises a lake Wobegon of sorts where everybody (even though not all!) are above average,
and it is finally recognized.
"Neoliberalism may have been in part so successful because it appeals to (and tries to explain
many things in terms of) a narrative of competition (and assignment of reward and acknowedlgement)
by merit."
Disillusioned
in Davos : Edmund Burke famously cautioned that "the only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing." I have been reminded of Burke's words as I have observed
the behavior of US business leaders in Davos over the last few days. They know better but in their
public rhetoric they have embraced and enabled our new President and his policies.
I understand and sympathize with the pressures they feel. ... Businesses who get on the wrong
side of the new President have
lost billions of dollars of value in sixty seconds because of a tweet. ...
Yet I am disturbed by (i) the spectacle of financiers who three months ago were telling anyone
who would listen that they would never do business with a Trump company rushing to praise the
new Administration (ii) the unwillingness of business leaders who rightly take pride in their
corporate efforts to promote women and minorities to say anything about Presidentially
sanctioned intolerance
(iii) the failure of the leaders of global companies to say a critical word about US efforts to
encourage the breakup of European unity and more generally to step away from underwriting an open
global system (iv) the reluctance of business leaders who have a huge stake in the current global
order to criticize provocative rhetoric with regard to China, Mexico or the Middle East (v) the
willingness of too many to praise Trump nominees who advocate blatant protection merely because
they have a business background.
I have
my differences with the new Administration's
economic policies and suspect the recent market rally and run of economic statistics is a
sugar high. Reasonable people who I respect differ and time will tell. My objection is not to
disagreements over economic policy. It is to enabling if not encouraging immoral and reckless
policies in other spheres that ultimately bear on our prosperity. Burke was right. It is a lesson
of human experience whether the issue is playground bullying, Enron or Europe in the 1930s that
the worst outcomes occur when good people find reasons to accommodate themselves to what they
know is wrong. That is what I think happened much too often in Davos this week.
No man, who is not inflamed by vainglory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single,
unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle designs and
united Cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they
will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
-- Edmund Burke
anne -> anne... , -1
Edmund Burke famously cautioned that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for
good men to do nothing."
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
By Milton Friedman - New York Times
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in
a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered
at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they
are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit
but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes
seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding
pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact
they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated
socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that
have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades....
When I used to read Delong's blog before Delong went off on Sanders because Delong thought that
Hillary Clinton would give Delongs son a job...
There was economics student that penned a response where he mentioned that the economics profession
generally dislikes models with negative externalities. But truly loath models that incorporate
positive externalities.
A positive externality is where some action on your part benefits you _and_ benefits some third
party.
One can assume Milton Friedman and his followers find that concept revolting indeed.
While I was not in Davos, I read about the proceedings and meeting in the Western European and
Chinese press and was impressed by the community emphasis placed on social justice. Possibly there
was considerable individual resistance to the public theme, and Lawrence Summers would readily
sense such resistance, but the public theme from the speech by Xi Jinping on was encouraging and
portrayed in Western Europe and China as encouraging.
Let me rephrase: Name me some Fortune 500 companies who consider potential societal impacts of
their actions and, as a result, sometimes make decisions which don't maximize their profits but
are the "right" thing to do for the community/their workers/the environment/etc.? What Fortune
500 companies are motivated by things beyond maximizing profits for shareholders?
My point is that corporate leaders who are charged to act to maximize profits will always be
cowards when it comes to moral and ethical issues. If their job is to maximize profits. If they
don't want to lose their job then that's what they'll do - act to maximize profits. Where would
Summers get the idea that they would act any differently? Do the people he's referring to have
a track record of choosing the moral high ground over profits? If they do then I could understand
surprise and disappointment that they're folding. But they've never had to face that choice before
let alone chosen moral high ground over money, have they?
My point is that corporate leaders who are charged to act to maximize profits will always be cowards
when it comes to moral and ethical issues. If their job is to maximize profits. If they don't
want to lose their job then that's what they'll do - act to maximize profits. Where would Summers
get the idea that they would act any differently? Do the people he's referring to have a track
record of choosing the moral high ground over profits? ...
I recall Summers/Romer with both houses and Obama blowing their chances to do something for the
middle/working class.
Summers/Delong said if the stimulus was too small we could always get another later, yet that
chance to do something never came and he did nothing.....
I'd like Larry to ponder whether it was he who did nothing.
I blogged yesterday * on how "Davos Man," the world's
super-rich, is very supportive of all sorts of protectionist
measures in spite of his reputation as a free trader. I
pointed out that Davos Man is fond of items like ever
stronger and longer patent and copyright protections and
measures that protect doctors, dentists, and other highly
paid professionals. Davos Man only dislikes protectionism
when it might benefit folks like autoworkers or textile
workers.
I thought it was worth pointing out that the protectionism
supported by the Davos set is real money. The chart below
shows the additional amount we pay for prescription drugs
each year as a result of patent and related protections, the
additional amount we pay for physicians as a result of
excluding qualified foreign doctors, and the total annual
wage income ** for the bottom 50 percent of wage earners. (I
added 5 percent to the 2015 wage numbers to incorporate wage
growth in the last year.)
[Graph *** ]
As can be seen, the extra amount we pay for doctors as a
result of excluding foreign competition is roughly one-third
of the total wage bill for the bottom half of all wage
earners. The extra amount we pay for drugs as a result of
patent protection is roughly twenty percent more than the
total wage bill for the bottom half of wage earners. Of
course we would have to pay for the research through another
mechanism, but we also pay higher prices for medical
equipment, software, and a wide variety of other products as
a result of patent and copyright protections. In other words,
there is real money here.
Davos Man isn't interested in nickel and dime
protectionism, he wants to rake in the big bucks. And, the
whole time he will run around saying he is a free trader (and
get most of the media to believe him).
The New York Times had an article * on the annual meeting
of the world's super-rich at Davos, Switzerland. It refers to
Davos Man as "an economic elite who built unheard-of fortunes
on the seemingly high-minded notions of free trade, low taxes
and low regulation that they championed." While "Davos Man"
may like to be described this way, it is not an accurate
description.
Davos Man is actually totally supportive of protectionism
that redistributes income upward. In particular Davos Man
supports stronger and longer patent and copyright protection.
These forms of protection raise the price of protected items
by factors of tens or hundreds, making them equivalent to
tariffs of several thousand percent or even tens of thousands
of percent. In the case of prescription drugs these
protections force us to spend more than $430 billion a year
(2.3 percent of GDP) on drugs that would likely cost one
tenth of this amount if they were sold in a free market.
(Yes, we need alternative mechanisms to finance the
development of new drugs. These are discussed in my free book
"Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern
Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer." ** )
Davos Man is also just fine with protectionist barriers
that raise the cost of physicians services as well as pay of
other highly educated professionals. For example, Davos Man
has never been known to object to the ban on foreign doctors
practicing in the United States unless they complete a U.S.
residency program or the ban on foreign dentists who did not
complete a U.S. dental school (or recently a Canadian
school). Davos Man is only bothered by protectionist barriers
that raise the incomes of autoworkers, textile workers, or
other non-college educated workers.
Davos Man is also fine with government regulations that
reduce the bargaining power of ordinary workers. For example,
Davos Man has not objected to central bank rules that target
low inflation even at the cost of raising unemployment. Nor
has Davos Man objected to meaningless caps on budget
deficits, like those in the European Union, that have kept
millions of workers from getting jobs.
Davos Man also strongly supported the bank bailouts in
which governments provided trillions of dollars in loans and
guarantees to the world's largest banks in order to protect
them from the market. This kept too big to fail banks in
business and protected the huge salaries received by their
top executives.
In short, Davos Man has no particular interest in a free
market or unregulated economic system. They only object to
interventions that reduce their income. Of course, Davos Man
is happy to have the New York Times and other news outlets
describe him as a devotee of the free market, as opposed to
simply getting incredibly rich.
"... Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined by the market. The sentimental veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality that unpaid labour bears the stigma of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value. ..."
"... Commercial television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology of the marketplace. The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly cost a great deal of money, people seek money, in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul. ..."
"... Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward the market and (not withstanding its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the principle-the cardinal principle of liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except those of the market. Even liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood, the school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments of the market. ..."
"... The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its own image. ..."
"... In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state. But the remedy often proves to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association by formal systems of socialization and control weakens social trust, undermines the willingness both assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions destroys respect for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries between the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by crime and drugs or less dramatically by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering. ..."
"... "The myth that playgrounds and grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets, filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." In their contempt planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be taught by educators or professional caretakers: that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street, the child learns something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction. ..."
"... The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic weakness of organizations that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust and control. ..."
If terms like "populism" and "community" figure prominently in political discourse today, it is
because the ideology of the Enlightenment, having come under attack from a variety of sources, has
lost much of its appeal. The claims of universal reason are universally suspect. Hopes for a system
of values that would transcend the particularism of class, nationality, religion, and race no longer
carry much conviction. The Enlightenment's reason and morality are increasingly seen as a cover for
power, and the prospect that the world can he governed by reason seems more remote than at any time
since the eighteenth century. The citizen of the world-the prototype of mankind in the future, according
to the Enlightenment philosophers-is not much in evidence. We have a universal market, but it does
not carry with it the civilizing effects that were so confidently expected by Hume and Voltaire.
Instead of generating a new appreciation of common interests and inclinations-if the essential sameness
of human beings everywhere-the global market seems to intensify the awareness of ethnic and national
differences. The unification of the market goes hand in hand with the fragmentation of culture.
The waning of the Enlightenment manifests itself politically in the waning of liberalism, in many
ways the most attractive product of the Enlightenment and the carrier of its best hopes. Through
all the permutations and transformations of liberal ideology, two of its central features have persisted
over the years: its commitment to progress and its belief that a liberal state could dispense with
civic virtue. The two ideas were linked in a chain of reasoning having as its premise that capitalism
had made it reason able for everyone to aspire to a level of comfort formerly accessible only to
the rich. Henceforth men would devote themselves to their private business, reducing the need for
government, which could more or less take care of itself. It was the idea of progress that made it
possible to believe that societies blessed with material abundance could dispense with the active
participation of ordinary citizens in government.
After the American Revolution liberals began to
argue-in opposition to the older view that "public virtue is the only foundation of republics," in
the words of John Adams -- that proper constitutional checks and balances would make it advantageous
even for bad men to act for the public good," as James Wilson put it. According to John Taylor, "an
avaricious society can form a government able to defend itself against the avarice of its members"
by enlisting the "interest of vice ...on the side of virtue." Virtue lay in the "principles of government,"
Taylor argued, not in the "evanescent qualities of individuals." The institutions and "principles
of a society may be virtuous, though the individuals composing it are vicious."
Meeting minimal conditions
The paradox of a virtuous society based on vicious individuals, however agree able in theory,
was never adhered to very consistently. Liberals took for granted a good deal more in the way of private
virtue than they were willing to acknowledge. Even to day liberals who adhere to this minimal view
of citizenship smuggle a certain amount of citizenship between the cracks of their free- market ideology.
Milton Friedman himself admits that a liberal society requires a "minimum degree of literacy and
knowledge" along with a "widespread acceptance of some common set of values." It is not clear that
our society can meet even these minimal conditions, as things stand today, but it has always been
clear, in any case, that a liberal society needs more virtue than Friedman allows for.
A system that relies so heavily on the concept of rights presupposes individuals who respect the
rights of others, if only because they expect others to respect their own rights in return. The market
itself, the central institution of a liberal society, presupposes, at the very least, sharp-eyed,
calculating, and clearheaded individuals-paragons of rational choice. It presupposes not just self
interest but enlightened self-interest. It was for this reason that nineteenth-century liberals attached
so much importance to the family. The obligation to support a wife and children, in their view, would
discipline possessive individualism and transform the potential gambler, speculator, dandy, or confidence
man into a conscientious provider. Having abandoned the old republican ideal of citizenship along
with the republican indictment of luxury, liberals lacked any grounds on which to appeal to individuals
to subordinate private interest to the public good.
But at least they could appeal to the higher selfishness of marriage and parenthood. They could
ask, if not for the suspension of self-interest, for its elevation and refinement. The hope that
rising expectations would lead men and women to invest their ambitions in their offspring was destined
to be disappointed in the long run. The more closely capitalism came to be identified with immediate
gratification and planned obsolescence, the more relentlessly it wore away the moral foundations
of family life. The rising divorce rate, already a source of alarm in the last quarter of the nineteenth
century, seemed to reflect a growing impatience with the constraints imposed by long responsibilities
and commitments.
The passion to get ahead had begun to imply the right to make a fresh start whenever earlier commitments
became unduly burden some. Material abundance weakened the economic as well as the moral foundations
of the "well-'ordered family state" admired by nineteenth-century liberals. The family business gave
way to the corporation, the family farm (more slowly and painfully) to a collectivized agriculture
ultimately controlled by the same banking houses that had engineered the consolidation of industry.
The agrarian uprising of the 1870s, 1880s, and l890s proved to be the first round in a long, losing
struggle to save the family farm, enshrined in American mythology, even today, as the sine qua non
of a good society but subjected into practice to a ruinous cycle of mechanization, indebtedness,
and overproduction.
The family invaded
Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined
by the market. The sentimental veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the
late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality that unpaid labour bears the stigma
of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value.
In the long run women were
forced into the workplace not only because their families needed extra income but because paid labour
seemed to represent their only hope of gaining equality with men. In our time it is increasingly
clear that children pay the price for this invasion of the family by the market. With both parents
in the workplace and grandparents conspicuous by their absence, the family is no longer capable of
sheltering children from the market. The television set becomes the principal baby-sitter by default.
Its invasive presence deals the final blow to any lingering hope that the family can provide a sheltered
space for children to grow up in.
Children are now exposed to the out side world from the time they
are old enough to be left unattended in front of the tube. They are exposed to it, moreover, in a
brutal yet seductive form that reduces the values of the marketplace to their simplest terms. Commercial
television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology
of the marketplace. The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since
passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly cost a great deal of money, people seek money,
in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul.
Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward
the market and (not withstanding its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the
one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the principle-the cardinal principle of
liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore
be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals
cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their
happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except those of the market. Even
liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood, the
school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments
of the market.
The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with
institutions that operate according to principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities,
newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all.
It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it
recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom
line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional careerism, social work into
the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its own image.
Weakening social trust
In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state.
But the remedy often proves to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association
by formal systems of socialization and control weakens social trust, undermines the willingness both
assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions destroys respect
for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries
between the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by
crime and drugs or less dramatically by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering.
The main thrust of social policy, ever since the first crusades against child labour, has been to
transfer the care of children from informal settings to institutions designed specifically for pedagogical
and custodial purposes. Today this trend continues in the movement for daycare, often justified on
the undeniable grounds that working mothers need it but also on the grounds that daycare centers
can take advantage of the latest innovations in pedagogy and child psychology. This policy of segregating
children in age-graded institutions under professional supervision has been a massive failure, for
reasons suggested some time ago by Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, an
attack on city planning that applies to social planning in general.
"The myth that playgrounds and
grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets,
filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary
people." In their contempt planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working
as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be taught by educators or professional caretakers:
that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties
to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street,
the child learns something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction.
What the child learns is that adults unrelated to one another except by the accident of propinquity
uphold certain standards and assume responsibility for the neighbourhood. With good reason, Jacobs
calls this the "first fundamental of successful city life," one that "people hired to look after
children cannot teach because the essence of this responsibility is that you do it without being
hired."
Neighbourhoods encourage "casual public trust," according to Jacobs. In its absence the everyday
maintenance of life has to be turned over to professional bureaucrats. The atrophy of informal controls
leads irresistibly to the expansion of bureaucratic controls. This development threatens to extinguish
the very privacy liberals have always set such store by. It also loads the organizational sector
with burdens it cannot support. The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic
weakness of organizations that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust
and control.
The taxpayers' revolt, although itself informed by an ideology of privatism resistant
to any kind of civic appeals, at the same time grows out of a well-founded suspicion that tax money
merely sustains bureaucratic self-aggrandizement
The lost habit of self-help
As formal organizations break down, people will have to improvise ways of meeting their
immediate needs: patrolling their own neighbourhoods, withdrawing their children from public schools
in order to educate them at home. The default of the state will thus contribute in its own right
to the restoration of informal mechanisms of self-help. But it is hard to see how the foundations
of civic life can be restored unless this work becomes an overriding goal of public policy. We have
heard a good deal of talk about the repair of our material infrastructure, but our cultural infrastructure
needs attention too, and more than just the rhetorical attention of politicians who praise "family
values" while pursuing economic policies that undermine them. It is either naive or cynical to lead
the public to think that dismantling the welfare state is enough to ensure a revival of informal
cooperation-"a thousand points of light." People who have lost the habit of self-help, who live in
cities and suburbs where shopping malls have replaced neighbourhoods, and who prefer the company
of close friends (or simply the company of television) to the informal sociability of the street,
the coffee shop, and the tavern are not likely to reinvent communities just because the state has
proved such an unsatisfactory substitute. Market mechanisms will not repair the fabric of public
trust. On the contrary the market's effect on the cultural infrastructure is just as corrosive as
that of the state.
A third way
We can now begin to appreciate the appeal of populism and communitarianism. They reject both the
market and the welfare state in pursuit of a third way. This is why they are so difficult to classify
on the conventional spectrum of political opinion. Their opposition to free-market ideologies seems
to align them with the left, but 'their criticism of the welfare state (whenever this criticism becomes
open and explicit) makes them sound right-wing. In fact, these positions belong to neither the left
nor the right, and for that very reason they seem to many people to hold out the best hope of breaking
the deadlock of current debate, which has been institutionalized in the two major parties and their
divided control of the federal government. At a time when political debate consists of largely of
ideological slogans endlessly repeated to audiences composed mainly of the party faithful, fresh
thinking is desperately needed. It is not likely to emerge, however, from those with a vested interest
in 'the old orthodoxies. We need a "third way of thinking about moral obligation," as Alan Wolfe
puts it, one that locates moral obligation neither in the state nor in the market but "in common
sense, ordinary emotions, and everyday life."
Wolfe's plea for a political program designed to strengthen civil society, which closely resembles
the ideas advanced in The Good Society by Robert Bellah and his collaborators, should be welcomed
by the growing numbers of people who find themselves dissatisfied with the alternatives defined by
conventional debate. These authors illustrate the strengths of the communitarian position along with
some of its characteristic weaknesses. They make it clear that both the market and the state presuppose
the strength of "non-economic ties of trust and solidarity" as Wolfe puts it. Yet the expansion of
these institutions weakens ties of trust and thus undermines the preconditions for their own success.
The market and the "job culture," Bellah writes, are "invading our private lives," eroding our "moral
infrastructure" of "social trust." Nor does the welfare state repair the damage. "The example of
more successful welfare states ... suggests that money and bureaucratic assistance alone do not halt
the decline of the family" or strengthen any of the other "sustaining institutions that make interdependence
morally significant." None of this means that a politics that really mattered-a politics rooted in
popular common sense instead of the ideologies that appeal to elites-would painlessly resolve all
the conflicts that threaten to tear the country apart. Communitarians underestimate the difficulty
of finding an approach to family issues, say, that is both profamily and profeminist.
That may be what the public wants in theory. In practice, however, it requires a restructuring
of the workplace designed to make work schedules far more flexible, career patterns less rigid and
predictable, and criteria for advancement less destructive to family and community obligations. Such
reforms imply interference with the market and a redefinition of success, neither of which will be
achieved without a great deal of controversy.
"... Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced from self promotion the study would have more effective application. ..."
"... For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing, as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government, plus bag brownie points for patriotism. ..."
"... But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making a show of "governing". ..."
"... So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald. ..."
"... I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations. ..."
"... And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits. Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation. ..."
"... I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being "in the service." ..."
"... That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost most of what made them unique. ..."
"... there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience. ..."
"... The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society. We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity & racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill' that the rest of the world will want to follow. ..."
"... A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest -- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect. ..."
"... This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable. ..."
"... Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here, then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them. ..."
"... The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws. ..."
"... The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy. ..."
"... The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected. If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves. The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties, so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for the plutocrats. ..."
"... The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own. ..."
"Make America Great Again," the slogan of President-elect
Donald
J. Trump 's successful election campaign, has been etched in the national consciousness. But
it is hard to know what to make of those vague words.
We don't have a clear definition of "great," for example, or of the historical moment when, presumably,
America was truly great. From an economic standpoint, we can't be talking about national wealth,
because the country is wealthier than it has ever been: Real per capita household net worth has reached
a record high, as Federal Reserve Board data shows.
But the distribution of wealth has certainly changed: Inequality has widened significantly. Including
the effects of taxes and government transfer payments, real incomes for the bottom half of the population
increased only 21 percent from 1980 to 2014. That compares with a 194 percent increase for the richest
1 percent, according to a new study
by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
That's why it makes sense that Mr. Trump's call for a return to greatness resonated especially
well among non-college-educated workers in Rust Belt states - people who have been hurt as good jobs
in their region disappeared. But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable,
and creating sustainable new jobs is a complex endeavor.
Difficult as job creation may be, making America great surely entails more than that, and it's
worth considering just what we should be trying to accomplish. Fortunately, political leaders and
scholars have been thinking about national greatness for a very long time, and the answer clearly
goes beyond achieving high levels of wealth.
Adam Smith, perhaps the first true economist, gave some answers in "
An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations ." That treatise is sometimes
thought of as a capitalist bible. It is at least partly about the achieving of greatness through
the pursuit of wealth in free markets. But Smith didn't believe that money alone assured national
stature. He also wrote
disapprovingly of the single-minded impulse to secure wealth, saying it was "the most universal
cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Instead, he emphasized that decent people should
seek real achievement - "not only praise, but praiseworthiness."
Strikingly, national greatness was a central issue in a previous presidential election campaign:
Lyndon B. Johnson , in 1964, called for the creation of a
Great Society, not merely a rich society or a powerful society. Instead, he spoke of achieving
equal opportunity and fulfillment. "The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge
to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents," he said. "It is a place where leisure is a welcome
chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness."
President Johnson's words still ring true. Opportunity is not equal for everyone in America. Enforced
leisure has indeed become a feared cause of boredom and restlessness for those who have lost jobs,
who have lost overtime work, who hold part-time jobs when they desire full-time employment, or who
were pushed into unwanted early retirement.
But there are limits to what government can do.
Jane Jacobs , the great urbanist,
wrote
that great nations need great cities, yet they cannot easily create them. "The great capitals of
modern Europe did not become great cities because they were the capitals," Ms. Jacobs said. "Cause
and effect ran the other way. Paris was at first no more the seat of French kings than were the sites
of half a dozen other royal residences."
Cities grow organically, she said, capturing a certain dynamic, a virtuous circle, a specialized
culture of expertise, with one industry leading to another, and with a reputation that attracts motivated
and capable immigrants.
America still has cities like this, but a fact not widely remembered is that Detroit used to be
one of them. Its rise to greatness was gradual. As Ms. Jacobs wrote, milled flour in the 1820s and
1830s required boats to ship the flour on the Great Lakes, which led to steamboats, marine engines
and a proliferation of other industries, which set the stage for automobiles, which made Detroit
a global center for anyone interested in that technology.
I experienced the beauty and excitement of Detroit as a child there among relatives who had ties
to the auto industry. Today, residents of Detroit and other fading metropolises want their old cities
back, but generations of people must create the fresh ideas and industries that spawn great cities,
and they can't do it by fiat from Washington.
All of which is to say that government intervention to enhance greatness will not be a simple
matter. There is a risk that well-meaning change may make matters worse. Protectionist policies and
penalties for exporters of jobs may not increase long-term opportunities for Americans who have been
left behind. Large-scale reduction of environmental or social regulations or in health care benefits,
or in America's involvement in the wider world may increase our consumption, yet leave all of us
with a sense of deeper loss.
Greatness reflects not only prosperity, but it is also linked with an atmosphere, a social environment
that makes life meaningful. In President Johnson's words, greatness requires meeting not just "the
needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community."
Excellent article by an economist who understands that economic extends beyond markets
and intersects with political enlightenment. Were more economists that inclusive and divorced
from self promotion the study would have more effective application.
For many today, greatness is simply a government in the business of actively governing,
as opposed to shying away from it under one excuse or the other. One example: the meteoric rise
of incomes for the wealthy, which is a direct result of less financial regulation. First discovered
by Reagan, then perfected by Clinton, the method involves highlighting regulation as a dirty word
and overstating its link to American Capitalism, and in the bargain achieving less work for government,
plus bag brownie points for patriotism.
But what it really was, was a reluctance to govern for almost thirty years. Thank goodness
Trump called it out for the fraud it was, and Obama decided he would spend his last month making
a show of "governing".
But Reagan did not hesitate to govern on the international stage. That credit goes solely to
Obama, a president who's turned non-governance into something of an art. From refusing to regulate
bathroom etiquette, to egging people to have more casual sex (condoms on government, no worries,
go at it all you want), to unleashing 5 million illegals on domestic soil with a stroke of the
pen, this President has been the most ungoverning president in US history.
So that's what greatness means to most today: Government, please show up for work every
day and just do your job. Not draw lines in sand and unlock every bathroom in sight and let illegals
in. Just your job please, that's all. Yes? Grrreaat, thank you Donald.
I doubt many think that the greatness of America is just about money and power. But many
corporations are run on exactly this limited idea of the greatness of corporations.
And, unfortunately, these same misguided bottom-line corporations now control Congress
and the GOP. Corporate control of Congress should not be primarily for increasing corporate profits.
Part of the profits stemming from automation should be used to mitigate the tremendous disappearance
of jobs that corporations are causing by introducing AI and automation.
I was born in America in 1956 to native-born Americans. My father served starting right after
the Berlin Blockade, up through the Korean Conflict. My political consciousness was formed by
Vietnam, Kent State, the COINTELPRO Papers, the Pentagon Papers, the Church Committee reports.
My father had trust in the federal government, whereas I have none. I became a lawyer, and
married a lawyer. My brothers and my wife's sisters are all college-educated professionals.
Financially speaking, America has been very good to me. But as far as having any intellectual
or visceral concept of what America is, or what being an American means, I couldn't tell you.
I have traveled overseas enough to have an idea of life in other countries. My father shared
something with other veterans--a sense of belonging to something bigger than them based on being
"in the service."
That comradeship, born of intense experience while young, is rare. In terms of the
sense of belonging to a city or state, the most successful of us move around and cities have lost
most of what made them unique.
Given how very little we are expected to contribute to our city, state or country, or even
our neighbors, and as there is no central cultural core to being American--as compared to
being French or British--other than technology and the meritocracy of money, a personal sense
of ownership in America on the part of a majority of Americans runs contrary to contemporary experience.
I think this article touches on not only what will make America great, but also on how we should
act in order to show the rest of the world why liberal democracies are truly the path to prosperity
& peace in this oh so imperfect world.
How do we go about defeating ISIL & winning the smoldering economic/military contest with Russia
& China & other authoritarian regimes? By living righteously & daily demonstrating that treating
the planet & each other justly & humanely is the way to real happiness on Earth. & that we can
at the same time create plenty of wealth & life-fulfilling opportunities for all our citizens.
The first step on this path is real social & economic justice for all in our wonderful
country. The current economic inequality in the U.S. is a disgrace to any just & civil society.
We must figure out a way to fairly deal with that & our other inequalities of education, opportunity
& racial injustices, if we are to achieve our potential of being that 'shining city on the hill'
that the rest of the world will want to follow.
If the great liberal democracies of Europe & North America & the southern pacific region can
reinvigorate our optimism & our commitment to the communal values that have driven the world's
prosperity since WWII, we can surely convince the rest of the world through the awesome leverage
of 'social media' that our liberal values of education, fairness, & love for all of our fellow
humans is the true path to happiness & peace on Earth.
As a Britisher, educated at Wharton by the grace of an American-owned company, I feel gratitude
for American generosity; yet I am now a Canadian citizen, having decided that the US in the time
of Nixon could never be a place where my family could be happy. So I write this with mixed feelings.
A Great Society cannot be great in any meaningful sense unless it is determinedly honest
-- not just self-relievingly frank. Thus, although I was happy to see this article, which I judge
to be 'exemplarily' honest, I had disappointment that, in an age when the term post-truth is being
used to describe conversation in English-speaking society, it neglects to emphasize the essentiality
of honesty in any debate about what being a great society entails. Adam Smith did his best to
point that out, but the rich and powerful and especially those in public office and those of capitalistic
ideological bent appear these days to be letting us all down in this respect.
Having made a modest livelihood as an executive coach, I do not pretend that being honest (without
being self-relievingly so) is easy in high-level negotiations. Indeed it requires enormous courage,
intellect, empathy, and articulation skills. So I have enormous grief and considerable anxiety
for the state of US society today. But efforts like this one by the New York Times are certain
to be helpful. Thank you. I hope my contribution will be valuable to this fine newspaper and its
readers alike.
This article is long overdue. Mr Trump has never explained is what MADE America great in
the past. If questioned, he demurred. His shallow approach to policy and his poor understanding
of American history and civics makes any answer from him questionable.
Yet almost every policy and piece of legislation by Republicans seems aimed at making more
money for business. They assume it will trickle down to the workers (and we have seen over 30
years of how good that is working). So Republicans will ignore your plea or denigrate it. Doing
anything close to what you suggest gets in the way of making money.
"But forcing employers to restore or maintain jobs isn't reasonable, "
Our current Free Trade pacts make it too easy for employers to shift jobs abroad. Other
countries protect their industries. We should do the same, by again placing tariffs on any goods
which have been manufactured abroad which could be made here. This would not be "forcing employers
to restore or maintain jobs". It would be saying that if you want to sell your products here,
then you will either make them here or pay tariffs on them.
The Free Trade pacts have an additional problem. They allow international corporations
to sue us if they think that one of our laws or regulations is keeping them from making as much
money as they otherwise could. These lawsuits are conducted in special courts whose decisions
cannot be appealed. This allows international corporations to interfere with our democracy. They
should not be allowed to sue us for enforcing our own laws.
The issue isn't what the definition of "great" is. It's who America is great *for.* America
is outstandingly great for a very slim slice at the tip-top of the economy.
It's great for the Trumps and his cabinet members. These people have so much wealth that they
have bought our government. The gleeful look on McConnell's face last night after the GOP moved
to get rid of health care for millions, and to turn it back to the whim of the insurance companies,
said it all: America is great again for him. It's great for his owners.
The GOP are now proving that they are traitors to the general welfare. They are determined
to make this nation's chief goal be to protect the welfare of the wealthiest and best-connected.
If we are depending on a free press or the voting booth to protect us, we are fooling ourselves.
The forces that have seized our democracy are going to gut both the press, and our civil liberties,
so that this country can never again be "of, for and by the people." It will henceforth be for
the plutocrats.
The rest of us should just go quietly, and die on our own.
"... For him, the Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people -- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable. ..."
" In America there was once a popular but simplistic image of the Soviet Russia as the Evil
Empire destined to fall, precisely because it was unfree and therefore evil. Ronald Reagan who
advocated it also once said that the Russian people do not have a word for "freedom". Not so fast
-- says Alexei Yurchak. He was born in the Soviet Union and became a cultural anthropologist in
California. He employs linguistic structural analysis in very interesting ways. For him, the
Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people
-- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language
and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable.
Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its
own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse
by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master
signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together. According to Yurchak
"In its first three or four years, perestroika was not much more than a deconstruction of Soviet
authoritative discourse". This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet
Union shared more features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to
admit.
The demise of the Soviet Union was not caused by anti-modernity or backwardness of Russian
people. The Soviet experiment was a cousin of Western modernity and shared many features with
the Western democracies, in particular its roots in the Enlightenment project. The Soviet Union
wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The Soviet system, despite
its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical aspects to Soviet
socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were still very
important to people themselves in their lives. These values were: solidarity, community, altruism,
education, creativity, friendship and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western
values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important. For
many "socialism" was a system of human values and everyday realities which wasn't necessarily
equivalent of the official interpretation provided by the state rhetoric.
Yurchak starts with a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between ideological
enunciation, which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment, and ideological rule,
which are the practical concerns of the modern state's political authority. In Soviet Union the
paradox was "solved" by means of dogmatic political closure and elevation of Master signifier
[Lenin, Stalin, Party] but it doesn't mean the Western democracies are immune to totalitarian
temptation to which the Soviet Union had succumbed. The vast governmental bureaucracy and Quango-state
are waiting in the shadows here as well, may be ready to appropriate discourse.
It is hard to agree with everything in his book. But it is an interesting perspective. I wish
Alexei Yurchak would explore more implications of Roman Jacobson's "poetic function of language"
and its connection to Russian experiment in communism. It seems to me, as a Russian native speaker,
that Russians put stress on form, sound, and poetics. The English-language tradition prioritizes
content and meaning. Can we speak of "Hermeneutics" of the West versus "Poetics" of Russia? Perhaps
the tragedy of Russia was under-development of Hermeneutics? How does one explain the feeble attempts
to throw a light of reason into the loopy texts and theories of Marks, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin?
Perhaps the Russians read it as a kind of magical text, a poetry, a bad poetry -- not Pasternak
or Blok -- but kind of poetry nevertheless?
Just loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters
or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship, through strategies of ignoring the
powerful, focusing on hyperlocal socialities, treating ritualized support for the regime as little
more than an annoying chore, and withdrawal into subcultures. Yurchak demolishes the view that
the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts
of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance, while at the same
time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality, education, friendship,
community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. While his entire account is
a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under the Soviet system, Yurchak
also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed for some people (such as theoretical
physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways freer than for their peers in the West.
All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an explanation for the nostalgia that many
in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable to those who claim that Communism
was simply and nothing but an evil.
The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative
rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime.
One might say that his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities
was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them."
Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an official
resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement
of regime support, nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected to
perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological
meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they might reject
a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing to
a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29)
The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist
incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards),
Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief,
which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning.
Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature, join a rock band or art
collective, take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue
their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created
new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their
(inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation
of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the
regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that
transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.
"... Normalisation is what has historically happened in the wake of financial crises. During the booms that precede busts, low interest rates encourage people to make investments with borrowed money. However, even after all of the prudent investment opportunities have been taken, people continue borrowing to invest in projects and ideas that are unlikely to ever generate profits. ..."
"... Eventually, the precariousness of some of these later investments becomes apparent. Those that arrive at this realization early sell up, settle their debts and pocket profits, but their selling often triggers a rush for the exits that bankrupts companies and individuals and, in many cases, the banks which lent to them. ..."
"... By contrast, the responses of policy-makers to 2008's financial crisis suggest the psychology of hypernormalisation. Quantitative easing (also known as money printing) and interest rate suppression (to zero percent and, in Europe, negative interest rates) are not working and will never result in sustained increases in productivity, income and employment. However, as our leaders are unable to consider alternative policy solutions, they have to pretend that they are working. ..."
"... Statistical chicanery has helped understate unemployment and inflation while global cooperation has served to obscure the currency depreciation and loss of confidence in paper money (as opposed to 'hard money' such as gold and silver) that are to be expected from rampant money printing. ..."
"... The recent fuss over 'fake news' seems intended to remove alternative news and information sources from a population that, alarmingly for those in charge, is both ever-more aware that the system is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is . Just this month U.S. President Barack Obama signed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act into law. United States, meet your Ministry of Truth. ..."
"... Great article. I think it does describe the USSA at the present time. Everything works until it doesn't. ..."
"... The funny thing is I had almost identical thoughts just a few days ago. But I was thinking in comparison more of East Germany's last 20 years before they imploded - peacefully, because not a single non-leading-rank person believed any of the official facts anymore (and therefore they even simply ignored orders from high command to crush the Leipzig Monday demonstrations.) ..."
"... I'm ok with a world led by Trump and Putin. ..."
"... I recall the joke from the old Soviet Union: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." In the USSA these last few years, Barry pretends to tell the truth. Libtards pretend to believe him. ..."
"... Wrong. They believe him. Look at the gaggle of libtard/shiteaters at Soetero's Friday night bash at the White House. ..."
"... Reagan used to quip that in the Soviet Union, the people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. We're not the Soviet Union, but we have become a farce. Next stop - the fall. Followed by chaos, then onto something new. The new elites will just be the old elites, well, the ones that escape the noose. ..."
"... The real ugly problem with the Soviet Union is that whatever they broke it into isn't working well either. ..."
"... Russia's problem post collapse was the good ol' USSA and its capitalist, plunderer banking mavens. ..."
"... The only way to normalize banking in a contemporary banking paradigm of QE Infinity & Beyond is to start over again without the bankers & accountants that knowingly bet the ranch for a short term gain at the expense of long term profitability. In Japan an honourable businessman/CEO would suicide for bringing this kind of devastation to the company shareholders. ..."
"... In America they don't give a shit because it is always someone else other than the CEO that takes the fall. ..."
"... This, after I'd point out his evasion and deflection every time I addressed his bias and belief in the MSM propaganda mantras of racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all the usual labeling bullshit up to insinuating Russia hacked the election ..."
"... I've been using the term Hypernormalisation to describe aspects of western society for the last 15 years, before Adam Curtis's brilliant BBC documentary Hypernormalisation , afflicting western society and particularly politics. There are lies and gross distortions everywhere in western society and it straddles/effects all races, colours, social classes and the disease is most acute in our politics. ..."
"... We all know the hypernoprmalisation in politics, as we witness stories everyday on Zerohedge of the disconnect from reality ..."
"... It is called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE .. ..."
"... "When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit with the core belief." ..."
"... During their final days as a world power, the Soviet Union allowed cognitive dissonance to rule its better judgment as so many Americans are doing in 2012. The handwriting on the wall was pretty clear for Gorbachev. The Soviet economy was failing. They did none of the necessary things to save their economy. In 2012, the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear for the American people. The economy is failing. The people and the Congress do none of the necessary things to save their economy. Why? Go re-read the definition of cognitive dissonance. That's why. We have a classic fight going on between those who want government to take care of them who will pay the price of lost freedom to get that care, and those who value freedom above all else. ..."
"... to me the PTB are "Japanifying" the u.s. (decades of no growth, near total demoralization of a generation of worker bees (as in, 'things will never get any better, be glad for what little you've got' etc... look what they've done to u.s. millenials just since '08... fooled (crushed) them TWICE already) ..."
"... But the PTB Plan B is to emulate the USSR with a crackup, replete with fire sale to oligarchs of public assets. ..."
The term comes from Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The
Last Soviet Generation. The book argues that over the last 20 years of the Soviet Union, everyone
knew the system wasn't working, but as no one could imagine any alternative, politicians and citizens
were resigned to pretending that it was. Eventually this pretending was accepted as normal and the
fake reality thus created was accepted as real, an effect which Yurchak termed "hypernormalisation."
Looking at events over the past few years, one wonders if our own society is experiencing the
same phenomenon. A contrast with what economic policy-makers term "normalisation" is instructive.
Normalisation is what has historically happened in the wake of financial crises. During the
booms that precede busts, low interest rates encourage people to make investments with borrowed money.
However, even after all of the prudent investment opportunities have been taken, people continue
borrowing to invest in projects and ideas that are unlikely to ever generate profits.
Eventually, the precariousness of some of these later investments becomes apparent. Those
that arrive at this realization early sell up, settle their debts and pocket profits, but their selling
often triggers a rush for the exits that bankrupts companies and individuals and, in many cases,
the banks which lent to them.
In the normalisation which follows (usually held during 'special' bank holidays) auditors and
accountants go through financial records and decide which companies and individuals are insolvent
(and should therefore go bankrupt) and which are merely illiquid (and therefore eligible for additional
loans, pledged against good collateral). In a similar fashion, central bank officials decide which
banks are to close and which are to remain open. Lenders made freshly aware of bankruptcy risk raise
(or normalise) interest rates and in so doing complete the process of clearing bad debt out of the
system. Overall, reality replaces wishful thinking.
While this process is by no means pleasant for the people involved, from a societal standpoint
bankruptcy and higher interest rates are necessary to keep businesses focused on profitable investment,
banks focused on prudent lending and overall debt levels manageable.
By contrast, the responses of policy-makers to 2008's financial crisis suggest the psychology
of hypernormalisation. Quantitative easing (also known as money printing) and interest rate suppression
(to zero percent and, in Europe, negative interest rates) are not working and will never result in
sustained increases in productivity, income and employment. However, as our leaders are unable to
consider alternative policy solutions, they have to pretend that they are working.
To understand why our leaders are unable to consider alternative policy solutions such as interest
rate normalization and banking reform one only needs to understand that while such policies would
lay the groundwork for a sustained recovery, they would also expose many of the world's biggest banks
as insolvent. As the financial sector is a powerful constituency (and a generous donor to political
campaigns) the banks get the free money they need, even if such policies harm society as a whole.
As we live in a democratic society, it is necessary for our leaders to convince us that there
are no other solutions and that the monetary policy fixes of the past 8 years have been effective
and have done no harm.
Statistical chicanery has helped understate unemployment and inflation while global cooperation
has served to obscure the currency depreciation and loss of confidence in paper money (as opposed
to 'hard money' such as gold and silver) that are to be expected from rampant money printing.
Looking at unemployment figures first, while the unemployment rate is currently very low, the
number of Americans of working age not in the labour force is currently at an all-time high of over
95 million people. Discouraged workers who stop looking for work are no longer classified as unemployed
but instead become economically inactive, but clearly many of these people really should be counted
as unemployed. Similarly, while government statistical agencies record inflation rates of between
one and two percent, measures that use methodologies used in the past (such as John Williams' Shadowstats
measures) show consumer prices rising at annual rates of 6 to 8 percent. In addition, many people
have noticed what has been termed 'shrinkflation', where prices remain the same even as package sizes
shrink. A common example is bacon, which used to be sold by the pound but which is now commonly sold
in 12 ounce slabs.
Meanwhile central banks have coordinated their money printing to ensure that no major currency
(the dollar, the yen, the euro or the Chinese renminbi) depreciates noticeably against the others
for a sustained period of time. Further, since gold hit a peak of over $1900 per ounce in 2011, central
banks have worked hard to keep the gold price suppressed through the futures market. On more than
a few occasions, contracts for many months worth of global gold production have been sold in a matter
of a few minutes, with predictable consequences for the gold price. At all costs, people's confidence
in and acceptance of the paper (or, more commonly, electronic) money issued by central banks must
be maintained.
Despite these efforts people nonetheless sense that something is wrong. The Brexit vote and the
election of Donald Trump to the White House represent to a large degree a rejection of the fake reality
propagated by the policymaking elite. Increasingly, people recognize that a financial system dependent
upon zero percent interest rates is not sustainable and are responding by taking their money out
of the banks in favour of holding cash or other forms of wealth. In the face of such understanding
and resistance, governments are showing themselves willing to use coercion to enforce acceptance
of their fake reality.
The recent fuss over 'fake news' seems intended to remove alternative news and information
sources from a population that, alarmingly for those in charge, is both ever-more aware that the
system is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is . Just this month U.S. President
Barack Obama signed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act into law. United States, meet
your Ministry of Truth.
Meanwhile, in India last month, people were told that the highest denomination bills in common
circulation would be 'demonetized' or made worthless as of December 30th. People were allowed to
deposit or exchange a certain quantity of the demonetized bills in banks but many people who had
accumulated their savings in rupee notes (often the poor who did not have bank accounts) have been
ruined. Ostensibly, this demonetization policy was aimed at curbing corruption and terrorism, but
it is fairly obvious that its real objective was to force people into the banking system and electronic
money. Unsurprisingly, the demonetization drive was accompanied by limits on the quantity of gold
people are allowed to hold.
Despite such attempts to influence our thinking and our behaviour, we don't need to resign ourselves
to pretending that our system is working when it so clearly isn't. Looking at the eventual fate of
the Soviet Union, it should be clear that the sooner we abandon the drift towards hypernormalisation
and start on the path to normalisation the better off we will be.
Correct. I seen with sufficient level of comprehending consciousness the last 5 years of it
- copy-cat perfection with the current times in US(S)A, terrifying how similar the times are as
it is a clear indication of the times to come.
The funny thing is I had almost identical thoughts just a few days ago. But I was thinking
in comparison more of East Germany's last 20 years before they imploded - peacefully, because
not a single non-leading-rank person believed any of the official facts anymore (and therefore
they even simply ignored orders from high command to crush the Leipzig Monday demonstrations.)
I was just thinking that the whole economic world sees us in a sort of equilibrium at the moment.
There will be some adjustments under Trump, but nothing serious. We shall see ..
Repeat something often enough and it becomes hypernormalised. With that in mind the number
of eyes/minds/hits is all that matters. This has been known and exploited for hundreds of years.
That a handful of individuals can have a monopoly over the single most important aspect of
whether you live or die is the ultimate success of hypernormalisation. CENTRAL BANKING.
Mrs.M is of the last Soviet generation. Her .gov papers say so. There is never
a day when I don't hear something soviet. She still has a her red pioneer ribbon.
I have tried to encourage her to write about it on ZH so that we know. Do you think she
will? No. She's says that we can't understand what it was like no matter what she
says.
Mrs.M was born in 1981 so she has lived an interesting life. I married her in 2004 after
much paperwork and $15000. I wanted that female because we got along quite well. She
is who I needed with me this and I would do it all over again.
Needless to say, I do not support any aggression towards Russia. And to my fellow Americans,
I advise caution because the half you are broke ass fucks and are already ropes with me.
I recall the joke from the old Soviet Union: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work."
In the USSA these last few years, Barry pretends to tell the truth. Libtards pretend to believe
him.
Geezer, I'd change only one thing... I believe libtards bought Barry's bullshit hook, line
and sinker... it was the rest of us who not-so-subtly were saying WTF!!!
Reagan used to quip that in the Soviet Union, the people pretend to work and the government
pretends to pay them. We're not the Soviet Union, but we have become a farce. Next stop
- the fall. Followed by chaos, then onto something new. The new elites will just be the old elites,
well, the ones that escape the noose.
what noose? you think joe 6p is going to identify the culprits? i think not. "no one saw this
coming!!!" is still ringing in my ears from the last time.
I really don't know how people can keep on getting clicks with this tired crap. It didn't happen
in 2008 just get over it. The delusional people are the people that think the world is going to
end tomorrow.
Maybe the world has ended, for 95 million? I haven't paid a single Fed income tax dollar
in over 8 yrs., for a specific reason, I refuse to support the new normal circus, and quite frankly
I would have gotten out during the GWBush regime, but I couldn't afford to at the time.
The real ugly problem with the Soviet Union is that whatever they broke it into isn't working
well either. Same with the USSA. No one really knows what to do. Feudalism would probably
work, but it is not possible to go back to it. My bet is that we will end up with some form of
socialism, universal income and whatever else, just because there is no good alternative for dealing
with lots and lots of people who are not needed anymore.
Do you mean useless eaters or fuckers deserving the guillotine? Russia's problem post collapse
was the good ol' USSA and its capitalist, plunderer banking mavens.
The Soviet Union pushed its old culture to near destruction but failed to establish a new and
better culture to replace it, writes Angelo M. Codevilla in "The Rise of Political Correctness,"
and as a result the U.S.S.R fell, just as America's current "politically correct" and dysfunctional
"progressive utopia" will implode.
As such, Codevilla would agree that the US population " is both ever-more aware that the system
is not working and less and less willing to pretend that it is."
As for the U.S.S.R., "this step turned out instead to destroy the very basis of Soviet power,"
writes Codevilla. "[C]ontinued efforts to force people to celebrate the party's ersatz reality,
to affirm things that they know are not true and to deny others they know to be true – to live
by lies – requires breaking them , reducing them to a sense of fearful isolation, destroying their
self-esteem and their capacity to trust others. George Orwell's novel 1984 dramatized this culture
war's ends and means : nothing less than the substitution of the party's authority for the reality
conveyed by human senses and reason. Big Brother's agent, having berated the hapless Winston
for preferring his own views to society's dictates, finished breaking his spirit by holding up
four fingers and demanding that Winston acknowledge seeing five.
"Thus did the Soviet regime create dysfunctional, cynical, and resentful subjects. Because
Communism confused destruction of 'bourgeois culture' with cultural conquest, it won all the cultural
battles while losing its culture war long before it collapsed politically. As Communists identified
themselves in people's minds with falsehood and fraud, people came to identify truth with anything
other than the officials and their doctrines. Inevitably, they also identified them with corruption
and privation. A nd so it was that, whenever the authorities announced that the harvest had been
good, the people hoarded potatoes; and that more and more people who knew nothing of Christianity
except that the authorities had anathematized it, started wearing crosses."
And if you want to see the ruling class's culture war in action today in America, pick up the
latest issues of Vogue Magazine or O, The Oprah Magazine with their multitude of role reversals
between whites and minorities. Or check out the latest decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court forcing
people to acknowledge that America is not a Christian nation, or making it "more difficult for
men, women and children to exist as a family" or demanding via law "that their subjects join them
in celebrating the new order that reflects their identity."
As to just how far the ruling class has gone to serve the interests and proclivities of its
leaders and to reject the majority's demand for representation, Codevilla notes, "In 2012 no one
would have thought that defining marriage between one man and one woman, as enshrined in U.S.
law, would brand those who do so as motivated by a culpable psychopathology called 'homophobia,'
subject to fines and near-outlaw status. Not until 2015-16 did it occur to anyone that requiring
persons with male personal plumbing to use public bathrooms reserved for men was a sign of the
same pathology
"On the wholesale level, it is a war on civilization waged to indulge identity politics."
This article is so flawed! People[impoverished] aren't trying to jump over a wall patrolled
by guards into Mexico -YET. Tyler, why do you repost shit like this?
That's because the Yankees, fleeing high taxes, can move to the sunbelt states w/o freezing.
The USA went broke in 2008. Mexico got a head start by 22 years when oil prices collapsed in '86.
The only way to normalize banking in a contemporary banking paradigm of QE Infinity & Beyond
is to start over again without the bankers & accountants that knowingly bet the ranch for a short
term gain at the expense of long term profitability. In Japan an honourable businessman/CEO would
suicide for bringing this kind of devastation to the company shareholders.
In America they don't give a shit because it is always someone else other than the CEO
that takes the fall. 08 was proof that America is not equipped to participate in a Multinational
& Multipolar world of business & investment in business. America can't get along in business in
this world anymore. Greed has rendered America unemployable as a major market participant in a
Globally run network of businesses.
America is the odd man out these days even though the next POTUS promises better management
from a business perspective. Whilst the Mafia Cartel bosses trust TrumpO's business savvy the
rest of the planet Earth does not.
A liberal friend laid this movie on me to show me why he supported Hillary. A smart cookie,
a PHd teaching English in Japan. A Khazarnazi Jew, he even spent time in Kyiv, Ukraine pre-coup,
only mingling with "poets and writers". He went out of his way to tell me how bad the Russians
were, informed as he was prior to the rejection of the EU's usurious offer.
He even quite dramatically pulled out the Anti-Semite card. I had to throw Banderas in his
face and the US sponsored regime. I had respect for this guy and his knowledge but he just - could
- not - let - go the cult assumptions. I finally came to believe Liberal Arts educators are victims
of inbred conditioning. In retaliation, he wanted to somehow prove Putin a charlatan or villian
and Trump his proxie.
This, after I'd point out his evasion and deflection every time I addressed his bias and
belief in the MSM propaganda mantras of racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all the usual labeling
bullshit up to insinuating Russia hacked the election. Excerpts from a correspondence wherein
I go full asshole on the guy follow. Try and make sense of it if you watch this trash:
HyperNormalization 50:29 Not Ronald Rayguns, or Quadaffi plays along. Say what? They're, i.e.
Curtis, assuming what Q thought?
1:15 USSR collapses. No shit. Cronyism in a centralized organization grown too large is inevitable
it seems. So the premise has evolved to cultural/societal "management". Right. USSR collapses
but let's repeat the same mistakes 'cause "it's different this time". We got us a computer!
Then Fink the failed Squid (how do Squids climb the corporate ladder?) builds one and programs
historical data to,,,, forecast? I heard a' this. Let me guess. He couldn't avoid bias, making
his models fallacious. Whoops. Well, he does intend to manipulate society, or was that not the
goal? Come again? Some authority ran with it and ... captured an entire nation's media, conspired
with other like-minded sycophants and their mysterious masters to capture an election by ... I
may be getting ahead of myself.
Oh, boy, I have an inkling of where this is going. Perceptions modified by the word, advanced
by the herd, in order to capture a vulnerable society under duress, who then pick sides, fool
themselves in the process, miss the three hour tour never to live happily ever after on a deserted
isle because they eschew (pick a bias here from the list provided). The one you think the "others"
have, 'cause, shit, we're above it all, right? " Are we not entertained" is probably not the most
appropriate question here.
Point being, Curtis, the BBC documentarian, totally negates the reality of pathological Imperialism
as has been practiced by the West over the last half century, causing so many of the effects
he so casually eludes to in the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, Russia, the US and elsewhere. Perhaps
the most blatant is this; Curtis asserts that Trump "defeated journalism" by rendering its fact-checking
abilities irrelevant. Wikipedia He Hypernormalizes the very audience that believes itself to be
enlightened. As for my erstwhile friend, the fucker never once admitted all the people *killed*
for the ideals he supported. I finally blew him off for good.
I've been using the term Hypernormalisation to describe aspects of western society for
the last 15 years, before Adam Curtis's brilliant BBC documentary Hypernormalisation , afflicting
western society and particularly politics. There are lies and gross distortions everywhere in
western society and it straddles/effects all races, colours, social classes and the disease is
most acute in our politics.
We all know the hypernoprmalisation in politics, as we witness stories everyday on Zerohedge
of the disconnect from reality...
Enter Operation Stillpoint: William Colby, William Casey and Leo Emil Wanta.
At the time it started, President Reagan wanted to get a better handle on ways to keep the
Soviets from expansionary tactics used to spread Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin's philosophy of
communism around the world. He looked to his Special Task Force to provide a means of doing so.
One thing was certain: The economy of the Soviets had never been strong and corruption, always
present in government and always growing at least as fast as a government grows, made the USSR
vulnerable to outside interference just as the United States is today.
According to Gorbachev's Prime Minister, Nikolai Ryzhkov, the "moral [nravstennoe] state of
the society" in 1985 was its "most terrifying" feature: "[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave
bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals
on one another. And all of this – from top to bottom and from bottom to top."
Again, it sounds like today's America, doesn't it?
Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze made equally painful comments about the lawlessness and
corruption dominating the Soviet Union. During the winter months of 1984-85, he told Gorbachev
that "Everything is rotten. It has to be changed."
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong," Frantz Fanon said in his 1952 book
Black Skin, White Masks (originally published in French as Peau Noire, Masques Blancs). "When
they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.
It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because
it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything
that doesn't fit with the core belief."
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
During their final days as a world power, the Soviet Union allowed cognitive dissonance
to rule its better judgment as so many Americans are doing in 2012. The handwriting on the wall
was pretty clear for Gorbachev. The Soviet economy was failing. They did none of the necessary
things to save their economy. In 2012, the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear for the American
people. The economy is failing. The people and the Congress do none of the necessary things to
save their economy. Why? Go re-read the definition of cognitive dissonance. That's why. We have
a classic fight going on between those who want government to take care of them who will pay the
price of lost freedom to get that care, and those who value freedom above all else.
On one day we have 50 state attorneys general suing Bank of America for making fraudulent mortgages,
and on the next we have M.F. Global losing billions upon billions of customer dollars because
they got mixed with the firm's funds – which is against the law – or we have J.P. Morgan Chase
losing $2 billion (or is it $5 billion?) in bad investments. As Eduard Shevardnadze said, "Everything
is rotten. It has to be changed." As I would say it, "There is no Rule of Law in America today.
There has been no real Rule of Law since George Herbert Walker Bush took office."
No one listened then; no one is listening in America now. The primary reason? Cognitive dissonance.
-- Chapter 2, "Wanta! Black Swan, White Hat" (2013)
Okay then, forget what was said in 1985, that was later reported in 2013 ..
Lee Wanta. I've heard of him before. He was screwed over for some bullshit charges. And the
CIA made a firm warning... How long did that dude spent in jail?
Just looked up his story as it was blurry. Cronyism at its finest. So now that I got my refreshing
course. Trump stole/adopted (however you want to look at that) his plan and the project the gov
(DOT) proposes sucks donkey balls compared to Wanta's.
So where are all the climate hoaxers now by the way? You'd figure they'd be all over this.
to me the PTB are "Japanifying" the u.s. (decades of no growth, near total demoralization
of a generation of worker bees (as in, 'things will never get any better, be glad for what little
you've got' etc... look what they've done to u.s. millenials just since '08... fooled (crushed)
them TWICE already)
But the PTB Plan B is to emulate the USSR with a crackup, replete with fire sale to oligarchs
of public assets. They will Japan as long as they can (so it will be difficult to forecast
any crackup anymore than six months beforehand). Hope they have a Gorbachev lined up, to limit
the bloodshed
"... High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity). ..."
"... "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific market. ..."
"... Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" ..."
"... The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent peace" ..."
"... Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law ..."
"... "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" ..."
"... US Trotskyites gravitated mostly to neoconservatism, not "pure" neoliberalism. They were definitely contributors and players at later stage, but Monte Peregrine society was instrumental in creation of the initial version of the neoliberal ideology. And only later it became clear that neoconservatism is "neoliberalism with the gun". ..."
"... I think that after "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered, it became clear that the idea of proletariat as a new "progressive" class that destined to become the leading force in the society was a utopia. ..."
"... But if you replace "proletariat" with the "creative class" then Trotskyism ideology makes a lot of sense, as a "muscular" interpretation of neoliberalism. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have "neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution we have permanent "democratization" via color revolutions with the same key idea. In this case creating a global neoliberal empire that will make everybody happy and prosperous. So it makes perfect sense to bring neoliberal flavor democracy on the tips of bayonets to those backward nations that resist the inevitable. ..."
"... From this point of view neoliberalism is yet another stunning "economico-political" utopia that competes as for the level of economic determinism with classic Marxism... ..."
"... Consider Christopher Hitchens: the former Trotskyist wrote, following his 2002 resignation as a Nation columnist, that by not embracing things like the Iraq War, "The Nation joined the amoral side . I say that they stand for neutralism where no such thing is possible or desirable, and I say the hell with it." ..."
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind,
and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional
wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help
feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are
seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that
it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a
long time.
This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda,
the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.
And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had
been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism
can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no
longer work well and are starting to course the backlash:
High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via
higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
"Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market.Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity
seen as a specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should
be governed as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as
learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs
them with market techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly
tend to their own present and future market value.
Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under
neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.
The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war
for permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant
regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of
citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1%
or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura"
was in the USSR.
"Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making
transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said.
Who decide about level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that
previously were prerogative of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism
in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its
power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling
the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism"
of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR
to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up
the USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
This is a difficult question. They did not spawned neoliberalism and for some time neoconservatism
existed as a separate ideology.
US Trotskyites gravitated mostly to neoconservatism, not "pure" neoliberalism. They were
definitely contributors and players at later stage, but Monte Peregrine society was instrumental
in creation of the initial version of the neoliberal ideology. And only later it became clear
that neoconservatism is "neoliberalism with the gun".
I think that after "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered, it became clear that the idea
of proletariat as a new "progressive" class that destined to become the leading force in the society
was a utopia.
But if you replace "proletariat" with the "creative class" then Trotskyism ideology makes
a lot of sense, as a "muscular" interpretation of neoliberalism. Instead of "proletarians of all
countries unite" we have "neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution
we have permanent "democratization" via color revolutions with the same key idea. In this case
creating a global neoliberal empire that will make everybody happy and prosperous. So it makes
perfect sense to bring neoliberal flavor democracy on the tips of bayonets to those backward nations
that resist the inevitable.
From this point of view neoliberalism is yet another stunning "economico-political" utopia
that competes as for the level of economic determinism with classic Marxism...
Also this process started long ago and lasted more then 50 years. The first who did this
jump was probably James Burnham. The latest was probably Christopher Hitchens.
https://www.thenation.com/article/going-all-way/
Consider Christopher Hitchens: the former Trotskyist wrote, following his 2002 resignation
as a Nation columnist, that by not embracing things like the Iraq War, "The Nation joined the
amoral side . I say that they stand for neutralism where no such thing is possible or desirable,
and I say the hell with it."
It is the turncoat's greatest gift to his new hosts: the affirmation that the world exists
only in black and white.
Lord -> likbez... ,
Boudreaux assures us it would be unethical and uneconomical to do otherwise, by those with the
gold anyway.
Republicans in House Vote to Curtail Power of Ethics Office
By ERIC LIPTON
The vote came as a surprise and apparently without the support of the House speaker or
the majority leader. The full House is scheduled to vote Tuesday.
The move would take away power and independence from an investigative body, and give
lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.
Institutions, Rule of Law, and Civil Rights Deteriorate in Brazil as Government Doubles
Down on Failed Economic Policies
By Mark Weisbrot
When Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was impeached in May and removed from office in
August, many called it a coup.
The president was not charged with anything that could legitimately be called a crime,
and the leaders of the impeachment appeared, in taped conversations, to be getting rid of
her in order to cut off a corruption investigation in which they and their political allies
were implicated.
Others warned that once starting down this road, further degradation of state
institutions and the rule of law would follow. And that's just what has happened, along
with some of the political repression that generally accompanies this type of regime
change.
On November 4, police raided a school run by the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem
Terra (MST), in Guararema, São Paulo. They fired live (not rubber bullet) ammunition and
made a number of arrests, bringing international condemnation. There had previously been
eight arrests of MST organizers in the state of Paraná. The MST is a powerful social
movement that has won land rights for hundreds of thousands of rural Brazilians over the
past three decades, and has also been a prominent opponent of the August coup.
The politicization of the judiciary was already a major problem in the run-up to
Rousseff's removal. Now we have seen further corrosion of institutions when a justice of
the Supreme Court issued an injunction removing Senate President Renan Calheiros because he
had been indicted for embezzlement.
Calheiros defied the order, whereupon the sitting president of the republic, Michel
Temer, negotiated with the rest of the Supreme Court to keep Calheiros in place. The great
fear of Temer and his allies was that Calheiros's removal could have derailed an outrageous
constitutional amendment that would freeze real (inflation-adjusted) government spending
for the next 20 years, which has now been passed by the Congress.
Given that Brazil's population is projected to grow by about 12 percent over the next 20
years, and the population will also be aging, the amendment is an unprecedented long-term
commitment to worsening poverty. It will "place Brazil in a socially retrogressive category
all of its own," noted Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and
human rights, describing the measure as an attack on the poor.
The government's proposed public pension cuts would hit working and poor people the
hardest....
Free market is a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberal secular region.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, duh. "Policy" and "Capitalism" don't go together and never have. When you enact policy, you destroy the ability to make profit and you get the 1970's. ..."
Two of my criticisms about Krugman/Friedman, etc is that is 'free markets' are supposed to substitute
for policy in the government sphere. Except very telling except when we're talking about funding
the security state.
The other is that the real power of markets is that in a real free market (not a Potemkin one)
decisions are made often at the point where needs, information, incentives, and economic power
come together. But the large scale decisions the governments have to make, markets fail. Policy
though doesn't.
But Neoliberals hate policy.
AngloSaxon -> Gibbon1...
Well, duh. "Policy" and "Capitalism" don't go together and never have. When you enact policy,
you destroy the ability to make profit and you get the 1970's.
Free market is a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberalism as a secular religion. Somewhat
similar to "Immaculate Conception" in Catholicism.
In reality market almost by definition is controlled by government, who enforces the rules
and punish for the transgressions.
Also note interesting Orwellian "corruption of the language" trick neoliberals use: neoliberals
talk about "free market, not "fair market".
After 2008 few are buying this fairy tale about how markets can operate and can solve society
problems independently of political power, and state's instruments of violence (the police and
the military). This myths is essentially dead.
But like Adventists did not disappear when the second coming of Christ did not occurred in
predicted timeframe, neoliberals did not did not disappeared after 2008 either. And neither did
neoliberalism, it just entered into zombie, more bloodthirsty stage. the fact that even the term
"neoliberalism" is prohibited in the US MSM also helped. It is kind of stealth ideology, unlike
say, Marxists, neoliberals do not like to identify themselves as such. The behave more like members
of some secret society, free market masons.
Friedmanism is a flavor of economic Lysenkoism. Note that Lysenko like Friedman was not a complete
charlatan. Some of his ideas were pretty sound and withstood the test of time. But that does not
make his less evil.
And for those who try to embellish this person, I would remind his role in 1973 Chilean coup
d'état ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
) and bringing Pinochet to power. His "Chicago boys" played a vital role in the events. This
man did has blood on his hands.
=== quote ===
Of course, bringing a reign of terror to Chile was not why the CIA had sponsored him. The reason
he was there was to reverse the gains of the Allende social democracy and return control of the
country's economic and political assets to the oligarchy. Pinochet was convinced, through supporters
among the academics in the elite Chilean universities, to try a new series of economic policies,
called "neoliberal" by their founders, the economists of the University of Chicago, led by an
economist by the name of Milton Friedman, who three years later would go on to win a Nobel Prize
in Economics for what he was about to unleash upon Chile.
Friedman and his colleagues were referred to by the Chileans as "the Chicago Boys." The term
originally meant the economists from the University of Chicago, but as time went on, as their
policies began to disliquidate the middle class and poor, it took on a perjorative meaning. That
was because as the reforms were implemented, and began to take hold, the results were not what
Friedman and company had been predicting. But what were the reforms?
The reforms were what has come to be called "neoliberalism." To understand what "neoliberal"
economics is, one must first understand what "liberal" economics are, and so we'll digress briefly
from our look at Chile for a quick...
=== end of quote ===
Krugman is a neoliberal stooge. Since when Social Security is an entitlement program. If you start
contributing at 25 and retire at 67 (40 years of monthly contributions), you actually get less then
you contribute, unless you live more then 80 years. It just protects you from "free market casino".
Notable quotes:
"... A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made coherent
if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production. Only then
can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product of their work and
of the resources that they own. ..."
"... n a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge and
to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good livings are
those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near Carrier's initial
location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their luck is replicable: if
it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because there would be another productive
network that they could fit into a slot in. ..."
"... If not about people, what is an economy about? ..."
"... I hadn't realized that Democrats now view Social Security and Medicare as "government handouts".
..."
"... Some Democrats like Krugman are Social Darwinists. ..."
"... PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and
Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on disability
it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an ignorant jerk. ..."
"... What is a very highly subsidized industry that benefits Delong and Krugman? Higher education.
Damn welfare queens! :) ..."
"... No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate themselves
or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism. ..."
"... People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age
and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust belt."
..."
"... Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief struggle
to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated by cognitive
dissonance from a severely challenged worldview. ..."
"... He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health. ..."
"... For a long time DeLong was mocking the notion of "economic anxiety" amongst the voters. Does
this blog post mean he's rethinking that idea? ..."
"... The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters are
convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white congregations),
then it is not deserved. ..."
Brad DeLong has an interesting meditation * on markets and political demands - inspired by
a note from Noah Smith ** - that offers food for thought. I wonder, however, if Brad's discussion
is too abstract; and I also wonder whether it fully recognizes the disconnect between what Trump
voters think they want and reality. So, an entry of my own.
What Brad is getting at is the widespread belief by, well, almost everyone that they are entitled
to - have earned - whatever good hand they have been dealt by the market economy. This is reflected
in the more or less universal belief of the affluent that they deserve what they have; you could
see this in the rage of rentiers at low interest rates, because it's the Federal Reserve's job
to reward savers, right? In this terrible political year, the story was in part one of people
in Appalachia angrily demanding a return of the good jobs they used to have mining coal - even
though the world doesn't want more coal given fracking, and it can get the coal it still wants
from strip mines and mountaintop removal, which don't employ many people.
And what Brad is saying, I think, is that what those longing for the return to coal want is
those jobs they deserve, where they earn their money - not government handouts, no sir.
A fact-constrained candidate wouldn't have been able to promise such people what they want;
Trump, of course, had no problem.
But is that really all there is? Working-class Trump voters do, in fact, receive a lot of government
handouts - they're almost totally dependent on Social Security for retirement, Medicare for health
care when old, are quite dependent on food stamps, and many have recently received coverage from
Obamacare. Quite a few receive disability payments too. They don't want those benefits to go away.
But they managed to convince themselves (with a lot of help from Fox News etc) that they aren't
really beneficiaries of government programs, or that they're not getting the "good welfare", which
only goes to Those People.
And you can really see this in the regional patterns. California is an affluent state, a heavy
net contributor to the federal budget; it went 2-1 Clinton. West Virginia is poor and a huge net
recipient of federal aid; it went 2 1/2-1 Trump.
I don't think any kind of economic analysis can explain this. It has to be about culture and,
as always, race.
Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value
and Contribution of Knowledge- and Network-Based Increasing Returns
Pascal Lamy: "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger..."
Perhaps in the end the problem is that people want to pretend that they are filling a valuable
role in the societal division of labor, and are receiving no more than they earn--than they contribute.
But that is not the case. The value--the societal dividend--is in the accumulated knowledge
of humanity and in the painfully constructed networks that make up our value chains.
A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made
coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production.
Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product
of their work and of the resources that they own.
That, however, is not the world we live in.
In a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge
and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good
livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near
Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their
luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because
there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in.
All of this "what you deserve" language is tied up with some vague idea that you deserve what
you contribute--that what your work adds to the pool of society's resources is what you deserve.
This illusion is punctured by any recognition that there is a large societal dividend to be
distributed, and that the government can distribute it by supplementing (inadequate) market wages
determined by your (low) societal marginal product, or by explicitly providing income support
or services unconnected with work via social insurance. Instead, the government is supposed to,
somehow, via clever redistribution, rearrange the pattern of market power in the economy so that
the increasing-returns knowledge- and network-based societal dividend is predistributed in a relatively
egalitarian way so that everybody can pretend that their income is just "to each according to
his work", and that they are not heirs and heiresses coupon clipping off of the societal capital
of our predecessors' accumulated knowledge and networks.
On top of this we add: Polanyian disruption of patterns of life--local communities, income
levels, industrial specialization--that you believed you had a right to obtain or maintain, and
a right to believe that you deserve. But in a market capitalist society, nobody has a right to
the preservation of their local communities, to their income levels, or to an occupation in their
industrial specialization. In a market capitalist society, those survive only if they pass a market
profitability test. And so the only rights that matter are those property rights that at the moment
carry with them market power--the combination of the (almost inevitably low) marginal societal
products of your skills and the resources you own, plus the (sometimes high) market power that
those resources grant to you.
This wish to believe that you are not a moocher is what keeps people from seeing issues of
distribution and allocation clearly--and generates hostility to social insurance and to wage supplement
policies, for they rip the veil off of the idea that you deserve to be highly paid because you
are worth it. You aren't.
And this ties itself up with regional issues: regional decline can come very quickly whenever
a region finds that its key industries have, for whatever reason, lost the market power that diverted
its previously substantial share of the knowledge- and network-based societal dividend into the
coffers of its firms. The resources cannot be simply redeployed in other industries unless those
two have market power to control the direction of a share of the knowledge- and network-based
societal dividend. And so communities decline and die. And the social contract--which was supposed
to have given you a right to a healthy community--is broken.
As I have said before, humans are, at a very deep and basic level, gift-exchange animals. We
create and reinforce our social bonds by establishing patterns of "owing" other people and by
"being owed". We want to enter into reciprocal gift-exchange relationships. We create and reinforce
social bonds by giving each other presents. We like to give. We like to receive. We like neither
to feel like cheaters nor to feel cheated. We like, instead, to feel embedded in networks of mutual
reciprocal obligation. We don't like being too much on the downside of the gift exchange: to have
received much more than we have given in return makes us feel very small. We don't like being
too much on the upside of the gift exchange either: to give and give and give and never receive
makes us feel like suckers.
PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and
Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on
disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an
ignorant jerk.
Exactly the same could be said about many of those inner city minorities that the "dependent hillbillies"
look down on as "welfare queens". That may be one of the reasons they take special issues with
"food stamps", because in contrast to the hillbillies, inner city poor people cannot grow their
own food. What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism - and also the idiocy,
because the dismantling of society would ultimately hurt the morons that voted GOP into power
this round.
"What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism "
No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate
themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism.
People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age
and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust
belt."
His tone is supercilious and offensive. But your argument is that they are not "dependent" because
they earned every benefit they get from the government. I think his point is that "dependent"
is not offensive -- the term jus reflects how we all depend on government services. DeLong makes
the point much better in the article quoted by anne above.
Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief
struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated
by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview.
He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health.
The New York Times is easily the finest newspaper in the world, is broadly recognized as such
and is of course flourishing. Such an institution will always have sections or editors and writers
of relative strength but these relative strengths change over time as the newspaper continually
changes.
NYT Co. to revamp HQ, vacate eight floors in consolidation
"In an SEC filing, New York Times Co. discloses a staff communication it provided today to
employees about a revamp of its headquarters -- including consolidating floors.
The company will vacate at least eight floors, consolidating workspaces and allowing for "significant"
rental income, the memo says."
The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters
are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white
congregations), then it is not deserved. But if that same government money goes to themselves
(or their real close relatives), then it is a hard earned and well-deserved payback for their
sacrifices and tax payments. So the GOP leadership has always called it "saving social security"
and "cracking down on fraud" rather than admitting to their attempts to dismantle those programs.
The Dems better be on the ball and call it what it is. If you want to save those programs you
just have to prevent rich people from wiggling out of paying for them (don't repeal the Obamacare
medicare taxes on the rich).
On the Pk piece. I think it is really about human dignity, and the need for it. There were a lot
of factors in this horrific election, but just as urban blacks need to be spared police brutality,
rural whites need a dignified path in their lives. Everyone, united, deserves such a path.
This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed.
I agree to a point, but what the piece is about is that in search of a solution to the problems
of the rustbelt (whatever the definition is),people voted for Trump who had absolutely no plan
to solve such a problem, other than going back to the future and redoing Nafta and getting rid
of regulations.
Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was
being placed in severe risk.
Those voters were fixed on his rhetoric and right arm extended while his left hand was grabbing
them by the (in deference to Anne I will not say the words, but Trump himself has said one of
them and the other is the male version).
Really? You didn't seem to before. You'd say what Duy or Noah Smith or DeLong were mulling about was
off-limits. You'd ban them from the comment section if you could. "This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed." I don't see why this is such a controversial point for centrist like Krugman. How do we appeal to the white working class without contradicting our principles?
By promoting policies that raise living standards. By delivering, which mean left-wing policies
not centrist tinkering. It's the Clinton vs. Sanders primary. Hillary could have nominated Elizabeth Warren as her VP candidate but her corporate masters
wouldn't let her.
"Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was being
placed in severe risk."
That safety net is an improvement over 1930. But it's been fraying so badly over the last 20-30
years that it's almost lost all meaning. It's something people turn to before total destitution,
but for rebuilding a life? A sick joke, filled with petty hassles and frustrations.
And the fraying has been a solidly bipartisan project. Who can forget welfare "reform"?
So maybe the yokels you're blaming for the 10,000-th time might not buy your logic or your
intentions.
... At the height of their influence in the 1950s, labor unions could claim to represent about
1 of every 3 American workers. Today, it's 1 in 9 - and falling.
Some have seen the shrinking size and waning influence of labor unions as a sign that the US
economy is growing more flexible and dynamic, but there's mounting evidence that it is also contributing
to slow wage growth and the rise in inequality. ...
(Union membership) NY 24.7%, MA 12.4%, SC 2.1%
... Are unions faring any better here in Massachusetts?
While Massachusetts's unions are stronger than average, it's not among the most heavily unionized
states. That honor goes to New York, where 1 in every 4 workers belongs to a union. After New
York, there are 11 other states with higher union membership rates then Massachusetts.
Here too, though, the decline in union membership over time has been steep.
... In 2015, 30 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below
that of the U.S. average, 11.1 percent, and 20 states had rates above it. All states
in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had union membership rates
below the national average, and all states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions
had rates above it. Union membership rates increased over the year in 24 states and
the District of Columbia, declined in 23 states, and were unchanged in 3 states.
(See table 5.)
Five states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2015: South Carolina
(2.1 percent), North Carolina (3.0 percent), Utah (3.9 percent), Georgia (4.0 percent),
and Texas (4.5 percent).
Two states had union membership rates over 20.0 percent in
2015: New York (24.7 percent) and Hawaii (20.4 percent).
State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million)
and New York (2.0 million).
Roughly half of the 14.8 million union members in the
U.S. lived in just seven states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million;
Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey,
0.6 million each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally.
(It appears that New England union participation
lags in the northeast, and also in the rest of
the US not in the Red Zone.)
I have noted before that New England
is doing better 'than average' (IMO)
because of high-tech industry & education.
Not necessarily because of a lack of
unionization, which is prevalent here
in public education & among service
workers. Note that in higher ed,
much here is private.
Private industry here traditionally
is not heavily unionized, although
that is probably not the case
among defense corps.
As to causation, I think the
implication is that 'Dems dealing
with unions' has not been working
all that well, recovery-wise,
particularly in the rust belt.
That must have as much to do with
industrial management as it does
with labor, and the ubiquitous
on-going industrial revolution.
Everybody needs, and desperately crave, self-confidence and dignity. In white rural culture that
has always been connected to the old settler mentality and values of personal "freedom" and "independence".
It is unfortunate that this freedom/independence mythology has been what attracted all the immigrants
from Europe over here. So it is as strongly engrained (both in culture and individual values)
as it is outdated and counterproductive in the world of the future. I am not sure that society
can help a community where people find themselves humiliated by being helped (especially by bad
government). Maybe somehow try to get them to think of the government help as an earned benefit?
"... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
"... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
"... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
"... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
"... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
"... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
"... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
"... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
"... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
"... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
"Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital
- and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation
of the same tradition?"
You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different
from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here
about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump
is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.
... ... ...
T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm
RP @683
That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely
in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But
that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not
been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan)
are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals
w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.
Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade
and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.
But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much
more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against
gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure
spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.
T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.
There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents.
The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading
our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked
together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.
These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.
I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance
for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger
vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing
and distressing.
Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American
life, but there aren't 7th acts.
If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It
can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very
rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown
by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than
Sanders or Trump have been offering.<
Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few
allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification
that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the
consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard
Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."
You've studied this more than I have,
but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon
from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out
of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair
number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running
against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated
largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.
To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would
actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty
as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was
against Nixon during watergate.
OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from
the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would
require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win
the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a
landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.
From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power
to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable
election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit
and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates
left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower
the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates",
and enable them to whitewash their history.
Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal
to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left
until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.
Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen
by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."
That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating
insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant
to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something
she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine
that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her
because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every
time she comments.
That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support
her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's
response to her comment.
"... In practice, however, neoliberalism has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state. ..."
"... The Neoliberal State ..."
"... Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing a minimum level of security against poverty. ..."
"... Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart ..."
"... Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects; they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the former. ..."
"... But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social cohesion. ..."
"... Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory. It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice. ..."
"... A more likely course of events is that social democracy will be eroded even further. ..."
"... The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism has no remedy for its own failure. ..."
"... Although the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that social democracy requires will be next to impossible. ..."
John Gray Neoliberals
wanted to limit government, but the upshot of their policies has been a huge expansion in the power
of the state. Deregulating the financial system left banks free to speculate, and they did so with
reckless enthusiasm. The result was a build-up of toxic assets that threatened the entire banking
system. The government was forced to step in to save the system from self-destruction, but only at
the cost of becoming itself hugely indebted. As a result, the state has a greater stake in the financial
system than it did in the time of Clement Attlee. Yet the government is reluctant to use its power,
even to curb the gross bonuses that bankers are awarding themselves from public funds. The neoliberal
financial regime may have collapsed, but politicians continue to defer to the authority of the market.
Hardcore Thatcherites, and their fellow-travellers in New Labour, sometimes question whether there
was ever a time when neoliberal ideas shaped policy. Has public spending not continued to rise over
recent decades? Is the state not bigger than it has ever been? In practice, however, neoliberalism
has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically
impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions
on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state.
An increase in state power has always been the inner logic of neoliberalism, because, in order
to inject markets into every corner of social life, a government needs to be highly invasive. Health,
education and the arts are now more controlled by the state than they were in the era of Labour collectivism.
Once-autonomous institutions are entangled in an apparatus of government targets and incentives.
The consequence of reshaping society on a market model has been to make the state omnipresent.
Raymond Plant is a rarity among academic political theorists, in that he has deep experience of
political life (before becoming a Labour peer he was a long-time adviser to Neil Kinnock). But he
remains a philosopher, and the central focus of The Neoliberal State is not on the ways
in which neoliberalism has self-destructed in practice. Instead, using a method of immanent criticism,
Plant aims to uncover contradictions in neoliberal ideology itself. Examining a wide variety of thinkers
- Michael Oakeshott, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, James Buchanan and others - he develops a rigorous
and compelling argument that neoliberal ideas are inherently unstable.
Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who
want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state
can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize
an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and
contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine
individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing
a minimum level of security against poverty.
This is a reasonable summary of the neoliberal view of the state. Whether this view is underpinned
by any coherent theory is another matter. The thinkers who helped shape neoliberal ideas are a very
mixed bag, differing widely among themselves on many fundamental issues. Oakeshott's scepticism has
very little in common with Hayek's view of the market as the engine of human progress, for example,
or with Nozick's cult of individual rights.
It is a mistake to look for a systematic body of neoliberal theory, for none has ever existed.
In order to criticise neoliberal ideology, one must first reconstruct it, and this is exactly what
Plant does. The result is the most authoritative and comprehensive critique of neoliberal thinking
to date.
Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart
and is finally indistinguishable from a mild form of social democracy. Plant is a distinguished
scholar of Hegel, and his critique of neoliberalism has a strongly Hegelian flavour. The ethical
basis of the neoliberal state is a concern for negative freedom and the rule of law; but when these
ideals are examined closely, they prove either to be compatible with social democracy or actually
to require it. Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects;
they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the
former. Himself a social democrat, Plant believes that the neoliberal state is bound as a matter
of morality and logic to develop in a social-democratic direction.
But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to
suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the
sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social
cohesion. A similar view has recently surfaced in British politics in Phillip Blond's "Red Toryism".
Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory.
It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have
become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually
become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people
for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice.
If there is no reason in theory why the neoliberal state must develop in a social-democratic direction,
neither is there any reason in practice. A more likely course of events is that social democracy
will be eroded even further. The banking crisis rules out any prospect of a return to neoliberal
business-as-usual. As Plant writes towards the end of the book: "It has been argued that the central
cause of the banking crisis is a failure of regulation in relation to toxic assets . . . This, however,
completely neglects the systemic nature of the problems - a systemic structure that has itself been
developed as a result of liberalisation, that is, the creation of new assets without normal market
prices and their diffusion throughout the banking system." The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism
has no remedy for its own failure.
The upshot of the crisis is unlikely, however, to be a revival of social democracy. Although
the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the
banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign
debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that
social democracy requires will be next to impossible. Neoliberalism and social democracy may
be dialectically related, but only in the sense that when the neoliberal state collapses it takes
down much of what remains of social democracy as well.
The Neoliberal State
Raymond Plant Oxford University Press, 304pp, £50
John Gray is the New Statesman's lead book reviewer. His book "False Dawn: the Delusions
of Global Capitalism", first published in 1998, has been reissued by Granta Books with a new introduction
(£8.99) His latest book is
The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom .
"... The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . ..."
"... Brave New World ..."
"... The Demon In Democracy ..."
"... he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate: ..."
"... Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship and a different enemy. ..."
"... The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the new man. ..."
"... Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of the language to the entire social organism and all its cells. ..."
"... Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. ..."
"... More and more people say No ..."
"... What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments. ..."
"... This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe (and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability; second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been such long enough for the voters to notice. ..."
"... Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. ..."
"... The new aristocrats are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic. ..."
"... When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences. ..."
"... Many Christians are understandably relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. ..."
"... Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any philosophical or cultural sense. ..."
"... Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states, today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist Trump? ..."
"... The new generations of the neocons gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact on the Republican mainstream. ..."
"... The Demon in Democracy ..."
"... Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian Bach. ..."
"... Considering that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language sounds somewhat surrealist. ..."
"... The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of European peoples. ..."
Legutko is a Polish philosopher and politician who was active in the anti-communist resistance.
He is most recently the author of
The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . In this post from September,
I said that reading the book - which is clearly and punchily written - was like
taking a red pill - meaning that it's hard to see our own political culture the same way after
reading Legutko. His provocative thesis is that liberal democracy, as a modern political philosophy,
has a lot more in common with that other great modern political philosophy, communism, than we care
to think. He speaks as a philosopher who grew up under communism, who fought it as a member of Solidarity,
and who took part in the reconstruction of Poland as a liberal democracy. It has been said that the
two famous inhuman dystopias of 20th century English literature - Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's
Brave New World - correspond, respectively, to Soviet communism and mass hedonistic technocracy.
Reading Legutko, you understand the point very well.
In
this post , I quote several passages from The Demon In Democracy . Among them, these
paragraphs in which he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that
liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate:
Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became
hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory
rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship
and a different enemy.
The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just
as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy
and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the
new man.
Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the
forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of
the language to the entire social organism and all its cells.
And:
If the old communists lived long enough to see the world of today, they would be devastated
by the contrast between how little they themselves had managed to achieve in their antireligious
war and how successful the liberal democrats have been. All the objectives the communists set
for themselves, and which they pursued with savage brutality, were achieved by the liberal democrats
who, almost without any effort and simply by allowing people to drift along with the flow of modernity,
succeeded in converting churches into museums, restaurants, and public buildings, secularizing
entire societies, making secularism the militant ideology, pushing religions to the sidelines,
pressing the clergy into docility, and inspiring powerful mass culture with a strong antireligious
bias in which a priest must be either a liberal challenging the Church of a disgusting villain.
After the US election, Prof. Legutko agreed to answer a few questions from me via e-mail. Here
is our correspondence:
RD:What do you think of Donald Trump's victory, especially in context of Brexit
and the changing currents of Western politics?
RL: In hindsight, Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general
process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political
reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. What this process, having many currents and
facets, boils down to is difficult to say as it appears more negative than positive. More
and more people say No , whereas it is not clear what exactly they are in favor of.
What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust
towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling
that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments.
This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe
(and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative
to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person
may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability;
second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been
such long enough for the voters to notice.
Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only
correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political
culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and
manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. In Europe it sometimes looks like an attempt
to build a new form of an aristocratic order, since a place in the hierarchy is allotted to individuals
and groups not according to their actual education, or by the power of their minds, or by the
strength of their arguments, but by a membership in this or that class. The new aristocrats
are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break
the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic.
It is, I think, this contrast between, on the one hand, arrogance with which the new aristocrats
preach their orthodoxy, and on the other, a leaping-to-the-eye low quality of their leadership
that ultimately pushed a lot of people in Europe and the US to look for alternatives in the world
that for too long was presented to them as having no alternative.
When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced
politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally
acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize
in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation
of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment
and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences.
For an outside observer like myself, America after the election appears to be divided
but in a peculiar way. On the one side there is the Obama-Clinton America claiming to represent
what is best in the modern politics, more or less united by a clear left-wing agenda whose aim
is to continue the restructuring of the American society, family, schools, communities, morals.
This America is in tune with what is considered to be a general tendency of the modern world,
including Europe and non-European Western countries. But there seems to exist another America,
deeply dissatisfied with the first one, angry and determined, but at the same time confused and
chaotic, longing for action and energy, but unsure of itself, proud of their country's lost greatness,
but having no great leaders, full of hope but short of ideas, a strange mixture of groups and
ideologies, with no clear identity or political agenda. This other America, if personified, would
resemble somebody not very different from Donald Trump.
Q: Trump won 52 percent of the Catholic vote, and over 80 percent of the white Evangelical
Christian vote - this, despite the fact that he is in no way a serious Christian, and, on evidence
of his words and deeds, is barely a Christian at all. Many Christians are understandably
relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name
of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. From your
perspective, should US Christians be hopeful about their prospects under a Trump presidency, or
instead wary of being tempted by a false prophet?
A: Christians have been the largest persecuted religious group in the non-Western world, but
sadly they have also been the largest victimized religious group in those Western countries that
have contracted a disease of political correctness (which in practice means almost all of them).
Some Western Christians, including the clergy, abandoned any thought of resistance and not only
capitulated but joined the forces of the enemy and started disciplining their own flock. No wonder
that many Christians pray for better times hoping that at last there will appear a party or a
leader that could loosen the straitjacket of political correctness and blunt its anti-Christian
edge. It was then to be expected that having a choice between Trump and Clinton, they would turn
to the former. But is Trump such a leader?
Anti-Christian prejudices have taken an institutional and legal form of such magnitude that
no president, no matter how much committed to the cause, can change it quickly. Today in America
it is difficult even to articulate one's opposition to political correctness because the public
and private discourse has been profoundly corrupted by the left-wing ideology, and the American
people have weaned themselves from any alternative language (and so have the Europeans). Any movement
away from this discourse requires more awareness of the problem and more courage than Trump and
his people seem to have. What Trump could and should do, and it will be a test of his intentions,
are three things.
First, he should refrain from involving his administration in the anti-Christian actions, whether
direct or indirect, thus breaking off with the practice of his predecessor. Second, he should
nominate the right persons for the vacancies in the Supreme Court. Third, he should resist the
temptation to cajole the politically correct establishment, as some Republicans have been doing,
because not only will it be a bad signal, but also display naïvete: this establishment is never
satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents.
Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public.
Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any
philosophical or cultural sense.Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states,
today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican
Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party
has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say
that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through
its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist
Trump?
A: Conservatism has always been problematic in America, where the word itself has acquired
more meanings, some of them quite bizarre, than in Europe. A quite common habit, to give an example,
of mentioning libertarianism and conservatism in one breath, thereby suggesting that they are
somehow essentially related, is proof enough that a conservative agenda is difficult for the Americans
to swallow. If I am not mistaken, the Republican Party has long relinquished, with very few exceptions,
any closer link with conservatism. If conservatism, whatever the precise definition, has something
to do with a continuity of culture, Christian and Classical roots of this culture, classical metaphysics
and anthropology, beauty and virtue, a sense of decorum, liberal education, family, republican
paideia, and other related notions, these are not the elements that constitute an integral part
of an ideal type of an Republican identity in today's America. Whether it has been different before,
I am not competent to judge, but certainly there was a time when the intellectual institutions
somehow linked to the Republican Party debated these issues. The new generations of the neocons
gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact
on the Republican mainstream.
Given that there is this essential philosophical weakness within the modern Republican identity,
Donald Trump does not look like an obvious person to change it by inspiring a resurgence of conservative
thinking. I do not exclude however, unlikely as it seems today, that the new administration will
need – solely for instrumental reasons – some big ideas to mobilize its electorate and to give
them a sense of direction, and that a possible candidate to perform this function will be some
kind of conservatism. Liberalism, libertarianism and saying 'no' to everything will certainly
not serve the purpose. Nationalism looks good and played its role during two or three months of
the campaign, but might be insufficient for the four (eight?) years that will follow.
Q: Though the Republicans will soon have their hands firmly on the levers of political power,
cultural institutions - especially academia and the news and entertainment media - are still thoroughly
progressive. In The Demon in Democracy , you write that "it is hard to imagine freedom
without classical philosophy and the heritage of antiquity, without Christianity and scholasticism
[and] many other components of the entire Western civilization." How can we hope to return to
the roots of Western civilization when the culture-forming institutions are so hostile to it?
A: It is true that we live at a time of practically one orthodoxy which the majority of intellectuals
and artists piously accept, and this orthodoxy - being some kind of liberal progressivism - has
less and less connection with the foundations of Western civilization. This is perhaps more visible
in Europe than in the US. In Europe, the very term "Europe" has been consistently applied to the
European Union. Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more
Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving
more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear
about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian
Bach.
It seems thus obvious that those who want to strengthen or, as is more often the case, reintroduce
classical culture in the modern world will not find allies among the liberal elites. For a liberal
it is natural to distance himself from the classical philosophy, from Christianity and scholasticism
rather than to advocate their indispensability for the cultivation of the Western mind. After
all, these philosophies – they would say - were created in a pre-modern non-democratic and non-liberal
world by men who despised women, kept slaves and took seriously religious superstitions. But it
is not only the liberal prejudices that are in the way. A break-up with the classical tradition
is not a recent phenomenon, and we have been for too long exposed to the world from which this
tradition was absent.
There is little chance that a change may be implemented through a democratic process. Considering
that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and
that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical
education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language
sounds somewhat surrealist. A rule that bad education drives out good education seems to
prevail in democratic societies. And yet I cannot accept the conclusion that we are doomed to
live in societies in which neo-barbarism is becoming a norm.
How can we reverse this process then? In countries where education is primarily the responsibility
of the state, it is the governments that may - hypothetically at least - have some role to play
by using the economic and political instruments to stimulate the desired changes in education.
In the US – I suspect - the government's role is substantially more reduced. So far however the
European governments, including the conservative ones, have not made much progress in reversing
the destructive trend.
The problem is a more fundamental one because it touches upon the controversy about what constitutes
the Western civilization. The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion
that Christianity, classical metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity.
A lot of conservatives – intellectuals and politicians – have readily acquiesced to this notion.
Unless and until this changes and our position of what constitutes the West becomes an integral
part of the conservative agenda and a subject of public debate, there is not much hope things
can change. The election of Donald Trump has obviously as little to do with Scholasticism or Greek
philosophy as it has with quantum mechanics, but nevertheless it may provide an occasion to reopen
an old question about what makes the American identity and to reject a silly but popular answer
that this identity is procedural rather than substantive. And this might be a first step to talk
about the importance of the roots of the Western civilization.
You have written that "liberalism is more about struggle with non-liberal adversaries than
deliberation with them." Now even some on the left admit that its embrace of political correctness,
multiculturalism, and so-called "diversity," is partly responsible for Trump's victory. How do
Brexit and Trump change the terms of the political conversation, especially now that it has been
shown that there is no such thing as "the right side of history"?
Liberalism, despite its boastful declarations to the contrary, is not and has never been about
diversity, multiplicity or pluralism. It is about homogeneity and unanimity. [Neo]Liberalism wants
everyone and everything to be [neo]liberal, and does not tolerate anyone or anything that is not
liberal. This is the reason why the [neo]liberals have such a strong sense of the enemy. Whoever
disagrees with them is not just an opponent who may hold different views but a potential or actual
fascist, a Hitlerite, a xenophobe, a nationalist, or – as they often say in the EU – a populist.
Such a miserable person deserves to be condemned, derided, humiliated and abused.
The Brexit vote could have been looked at as an exercise in diversity and, as such, dear to
every pluralist, or empirical evidence that the EU in its present form failed to accommodate diversity.
But the reaction of the European elites was different and predictable – threats and condemnations.
Before Brexit the EU reacted in a similar way to the non-[neo][neo]liberals winning elections
in Hungary and then in Poland, the winners being immediately classified as fascists and the elections
as not quite legitimate. The [neo]liberal mindset is such that accepts only those elections and
choices in which the correct party wins.
I am afraid there will be a similar reaction to Donald Trump and his administration. As long
as the [neo]liberals set the tone of the public debate, they will continue to bully both those
who, they say, were wrongly elected and those who wrongly voted. This will not stop until it becomes
clear beyond any doubt that the changes in Europe and in the US are not temporary and ephemeral
and that there is a viable alternative which will not disappear with the next swing of the democratic
pendulum. But this alternative, as I said before, is still in the process of formation and we
are not sure what will be the final result.
There will be elections in several key European nations next year - Germany and France, in
particular. What effect do you expect Trump's victory to have on European voters? How do you,
as a Pole, view Trump's fondness for Vladimir Putin?
From a European perspective, Clinton's victory would have meant a tremendous boost to the EU
bureaucracy, its ideology and its "more Europe" strategy. The forces of the self-proclaimed Enlightenment
would have gone ecstatic and, consequently, would have made the world even more unbearable not
only for conservatives. The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from
that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the
federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen
in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and
that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of
European peoples.
"The fact that he made some warm remarks about Putin during the campaign does not make me happy."
You would think an advocate against the Western liberal establishment would view Putin favorably,
as Pat Buchanan does. I guess old nationalist rivalries trump sticking it to the snooty elitists
in this case.
[NFR: Are you serious? Legutko's country was occupied and tyrannized by the Soviets for
nearly 50 years. Poland has had to worry about Russian imperialism for much longer than that,
as a matter of national survival. Any Pole that doesn't worry about Putin's ambitions is nuts.
- RD]
"it may provide an occasion to reopen an old question about what makes the American identity and
to reject a silly but popular answer that this identity is procedural rather than substantive"
That's a good assessment, from an outside observer.
However, his anti-Russian views appear to be driven by his own Polish nationalism and past
Warsaw Pact Soviet imperialism, the latter ideologically and practically as dead as Josef Stalin,
and objectivity thus distorted, are much less clear. Imagine, welcoming a foreign imperial occupation
– one tied to the very liberal order he critiques so effectively.
I think that anti-interventionists, cheered by those Trump campaign statements questioning
the NATO mission post-communism, and defense cost bearing so that clients become real allies instead,
or not, are far more objectively considerate of Americans' interests through a drawdown from aggressive
globalist/militarist hegemony, than his understandable but very subjective Polish parochial prejudices.
re education: Andrew Pudewa for Secretary of Education! (Seriously, he said on FB he has some
idea what he'd do if he could get that post.)
re Russia: Hillary's rhetoric must not have translated very well over there At any rate, if
the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to defend them. Or maybe
they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
"The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion that Christianity, classical
metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity."
I'm sorry, but this is a lunatic idea. Too bad it is the lynchpin of all "new right" thought.
You want to return to some imaginary West in which nothing happened in intellectual life after
about 1650.
It would take a book to properly refute Legutko and I am not inclined to do the work of writing
one but to put it simply, he has no knowledge of how Americans think. Americans are, at heart,
pragmatists. We don't care about ideology and most of the time we don't bother much with religion
either except to give polite lip service to it. It has no claim on the American soul.
Americans are at heart easy going people who have no use for either the loons of Liberalism
or Conservatism. Right now it is the Liberals, with their particular brand of silliness that are
out of favor. A few years ago it was Conservatives that no one wanted for next door neighbors.
The things Legutko writes of Americans could not care less about.
The American embrace of Putin is simply the result of American disgust with Europe, a continent
populated by a peculiar species of coward and ungrateful wretch, a museum that produces nothing
of any value any more and is governed by self-righteous morons who have nothing better to do with
their time than to lecture the infinitely more intelligent Americans. The American attitude towards
Europe is, "To Hell with it." In such an environment, of course we are willing to let Putin have
the damned place and the Devil give him good office. Trump, with his expressed contempt for the
opinions of foreign leaders, especially the Europeans, fits this perfectly.
I think an acceptable deal could be reached with Russia.
You have to think about it from their perspective: They have lost all power and influence not
only in the territories that Stalin seized, but also in many that were in the traditional sphere
of the Russian Empire. They view extension of Western influence and NATO into these territories
as an act of aggression and American aggrandizement. The loss of Ukraine is the cruelest cut of
all, because Kiev is the cradle of Russian Orthodox civilization.
Russian nationalists loathe Gorbachev, in part because he could easily have negotiated a deal
enforcing neutrality in formally Soviet-dominated territories as Soviet troops were withdrawn.
Instead, from their point of view, he gave it all away for nothing and left the Motherland open
to encirclement.
There is plainly space for a deal that would include security guarantees for Russia's neighbors
but also mandatory neutrality. Russia would take that deal. So far at least, we wouldn't, because
US policymakers want encirclement and domination in the region.
Let's see if Trump rethinks this. Russia is very imperfect, but we face much bigger and more
important threats. We'd be better off forging an alliance with Russia if we can.
Mr. Legutko is a member of PiS, the party which currently rules Poland. Immediately after coming
to power they turned all public TV Stations into Government mouthpieces, and practically shut
down the supreme court.
Communism is not a "political philosophy"; it's an economic theory. If they guy actually called
it a political theory (he may not have; those may be Rod's words, written in haste) then he's
no more worth listening to than a astronomer who asserts that the sun and planet revolve around
the Earth.
"this establishment is never satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents."
The Right should have learned this lesson with the Regan Amnesty. "A Deal is never a Deal"
with the left. For the Left, any comprise is just an opportunity to move sidelines yard markers.
Rod, do yourself a huge favor and if you don't have it already, pick up a copy of C. Lasch's
posthumous book The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. For some reason
I'd missed this one along the way, but I bought a copy recently and started it over the weekend.
He wrote it in the early 90's, but it's so on-target you'd think it was written yesterday. The
introduction alone is worth the price of the book - obviously he did not have Trump, or even a
Trump-like character in mind, but his observations on conservatism, liberalism, populism, etc.,
are head-shakingly accurate. Not to be missed.
"he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed
similar interdictions on free thought and debate."
I am sorry, but I have travelled throughout Eastern Europe before and after the fall of communism.
Anyone who tells me that liberal democracy there (where it exists) imposes "similar interdictions
on free thought and debate" is just not to be taken seriously.
This is an article I would have posted on Facebook if the tag line were not so inflammatory that
it would go unread and in fact do more harm than good.
This makes perfect sense . . . or it's utter nonsense. The problem is Donald Trump is a wild card.
No one knows exactly how Trump will play or be played. If Trump accepts the role of Head of State,
leaving the details of governing to others (Pense, Ryan, McConnell, whomever) there might be some
consistency. A conservative agenda (as Americans have come to know it) will be possible.
But if the Donald Trump who has displayed zero substantive knowledge about anything decides
to actually govern (or worse yet, sporadically and whimsically govern) then in the immortal words
of Bette Davis: "Fasten your seat belts! It's going to be a bumpy night."
Legutko is going to be disappointed but, I suspect, not surprised when Trump simply throws open
the door. And then asks Putin if he can get the base construction contracts.
I'm reminded of the lyrics in a song by The Who: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss." The
song title is "We won't get fooled again." Good luck with that.
Maybe there is just something in the nature of humans which compels us to want to impose our
biases, beliefs, and visions of society and the future upon those around us. Maybe it just boils
down to eventual fatigue from constantly arguing with people who will never end up agreeing to
your point of view: the simple solution has always been to make your opponents shut up. Failing
that, we resort to locking them up, or driving them out, or ultimately killing them.
With regard to this quote:
"Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public."
I'm not sure how to take this. Is he merely hoping to carve out some space for Christians to
co-exist with a larger secular majority. Or does he still harbor hope of restoring Christianity
as a central element of Western Culture, against the resistance of the secularists? If the latter
is his dream, I would point out that using institutional and political power to re-impose Christianity
upon the masses is no different that what the Left is doing now impose its preferred set of beliefs.
He would just be looking for a new Boss, if you will.
With regard to the European Project: It is worth remembering that European Nationalism resulted
many centuries of warfare between contending powers on the continent. It culminated in two world
wars, the second of which left most of that area of the world in ruins. The original motivation
for the European Union was to end that cycle of warfare, by more tightly linking together the
economies of these nations.
Now we see a resurgence of Russian Nationalism, with that country seeking to expand its sphere
of influence again, and gleefully egging on the Nationalists in Western Europe, with the hope
of finishing off the NATO military alliance. As emotionally satisfying as it might be to stop
the drive toward further unification and uniformity, a return to something worse is clearly possible.
Now Legutko clearly believes that the European Union and NATO were failing at the task of restraining
Russian imperialism anyway. From a Eastern European perspective, that is probably true. But if
you look around the conservative blogosphere, it isn't hard to find self described conservatives
who see that as a pragmatic necessity. They say it was a mistake to expand NATO, that those countries
were always naturally in the Russian sphere of influence, and coping with that reality it their
problem, and not our problem. The irony is that the more nationalistic and less global we become
in our perspective, the less likely we are to help protect Legutko's homeland from its larger,
aggressive neighbor to the East.
This guy derides the neocons, but on Russia, he is as bad or worse than them. How is Russia an
imperial nation when they have stood by and let NATO expand to their doorstep when the US promised
it would go no further east than Berlin? How is it imperialist that they secured their military
foothold in Crimea (killing no one I might add) against a US backed, fascist coup against the
democratically elected government of Ukraine?
[NFR: I think you should consider
the history of Poland
in the 19th and 20th centuries - especially from 1945 through 1989 - if you want to understand
why Poles worry about Russian imperialism. - RD]
I loathe the election of Trump and what it will do here (so much so, that our family will likely
move to Switzerland, where my wife is from and in which my 3 daughters all have citizenship),
but one of the quite reasonable things that Trump has said is that "If we got along with Russia,
it wouldn't be a bad thing."
I don't think that means letting Putin do whatever he wants, and I have zero or sub-zero faith
that Trump will implement anything like a sensible approach to whatever Putin does, but trying
to get along with Russia is not crazy.
At any rate, if the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to
defend them. Or maybe they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
These beastly Poles. Always provoking their Russian and German neighbors.
Legato embraces his own set of traumatic, reactionary 'isms' which, like most 'isms', are covered
with a patina of light philosophy to make them seem like the wisdom of the ages. I'm not sure
he's entirely comfortable with the outcomes of the Enlightenment
[NFR: Of course he's not! Neither am I. Where you been? - RD]
"... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable
their dominance. ..."
"... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal
turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income
between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe,
the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
"... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of
his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money
center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal
Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration,
but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served
to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political
power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
"... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove
both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
"... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for
economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened,
in a meteorological economics. ..."
"... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid
the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
..."
"... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw
attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political
problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or
coherence. ..."
"... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power,
Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional
critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected,
Obama isn't really trying. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because
it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of
income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression.
It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes.
It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking
higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices
were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish
public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor,
the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary
politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of
economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek
to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments.
In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect
economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian
scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression,
accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure,
with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms
and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New
York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five
banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon
Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition
(as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not
"gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina
Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide
resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity
prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At
the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various
big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise
restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating
the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same
economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were
two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing
center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade
that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains
and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment
in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting
tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that
just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus
to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic
neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing
the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency
of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally
financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the
Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus
indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen
spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again,
if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really
trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
Notable quotes:
“… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and
disable their dominance. …”
“… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist
commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …“
“… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the
New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner’s Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top
five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well.
Simon Johnson called it a coup. … “
“… Here’s the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …”
“… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just “forces”
that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …”
“… This was not your grandfather’s Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints. …”
“… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence. …”
“… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of
power, Obama wasn’t really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular
and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic
Congress doesn’t get re-elected, Obama isn’t really trying. …”
“… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
…”
"... In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the existing bonds that hold the society together. ..."
"the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right
in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon
orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking."
That's a very apt observation, especially in the part "the Left (or what
passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right ".
The key question here" "Is neoliberalism a flavor of conservatism or not?".
Or it is some perversion of the left? I doubt that "Neolib/Neocon orthodoxy"
that is really completely dominant in the USA can be viewed as a flavor of
conservatism. IMHO it's actually more resembles Trotskyism with its idea of
"world revolution" and classic Marxist slogan "Working Men of All Countries,
Unite!"
The first slogan was replaced with "Permanent neoliberal revolution" and
"New American Militarism" that we saw in action in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia,
Ukraine. They are eager to bring the neoliberal revolution into other countries
on the tips of bayonets.
The second was replaced by the slogan "Transnational corporate and financial
elites unite". Instead of Congresses of "Communist International" we have
similar congresses of financial oligarchy and neoliberal politicians like in
Davos.
In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals
with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the
existing bonds that hold the society together.
Still in other sense it resembles " the ancien regime", especially in the
USA :
The opening chapters of Maistre's Considerations on France
are an unrelenting assault on the three pillars of the ancien regime:
the aristocracy, the church, and the monarchy. Maistre divides the
nobility into two categories: the treasonous and the clueless. The
clergy is corrupt, weakened by its wealth and lax morals. The monarchy is soft and lacks the will to punish. Maistre dismisses all three
with a line from Racine: "Now see the sad fruits your faults pro-duced, / Feel the blows you have yourselves induced."5
If we equate "ancien regime" with the neoliberalism, the quote suddenly
obtains quite modern significance. It does have a punch. Now we see Trump
supporters attacking neoliberalism with the same intensity. And we can
definitely divide the USA financial oligarchy into "the treasonous" and "the
clueless." While neoliberal MSM are as corrupt as "ancien regime" clergy, if
not more.
Like in the past there is a part of the USA conservatives that bitterly
oppose neoliberalism (paleoconservatives).
The key problem here is that as there is no real left (in European sense) in
the USA, the challenge to neoliberalism arose from the right. Trump with all
his warts is definitely anti-globalization candidate. That's why we see such a
hysteria in neoliberal MSM about his candidacy.
Neoconservatism
The Autobiography of an Idea
By Irving Kristol
Irving Kristol has been a formidable presence in American intellectual life for over forty
years. After an early stint as an editor at Commentary, he helped to start three other influential
magazines -- Encounter, in 1953; The Public Interest, in 1965; and The National Interest, in 1985.
A Trotskyist in his student days, Kristol has moved in stages to the right, first becoming
a liberal anticommunist, then a conservative antiliberal. At one point in this evolution, in the
early 1970s, he embraced the label "neoconservative," which the socialist Michael Harrington had
introduced as a pejorative. Since then he has happily made himself so entirely synonymous with
neoconservatism that he now offers his latest collection of essays as its, not his, "autobiography."
But a label is not necessarily evidence of a coherent philosophy, or of a living one. As Kristol
himself acknowledges, neoconservatism has been swallowed by the larger conservative movement--[neoliberalism movement and ideology --NNB].
And his own views have evolved far beyond what he and others originally conceived as neoconservatism.
Several of his early collaborators at The Public Interest, notably Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, have long since parted ways. And well they might, considering the tone and substance
of Kristol's writing in recent years.
When neoconservatism first took shape in the late 1960s and '70s, it seemed to be different
from the older varieties of the American right. The Public Interest, and Kristol himself, accepted
the New Deal, but rejected the political and cultural currents of the '60s.
Yet even with
respect to the policies of that era, their stance was meliorism, not repudiation. They presented
themselves as defending the achievements of a capitalist civilization, often positively described
as liberal and secular, from the assaults of a radicalized liberalism. Nearly all were from New
York, most were Jewish, and they carried with them a sensibility that was urban and modern, even
when arguing on behalf of moral and cultural standards that were traditional or, to use Kristol's
preferred term, "bourgeois."
People who know neoconservatism only from that era might therefore be surprised to read
Kristol's recent fulminations against "secular humanism" and his praise of Christian fundamentalism.
Remembering the calm civility of his earlier essays, they might especially fasten on the following
passage from an article, written in 1993, with which Kristol concludes his new book: "So far from
having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life
has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos.... Now that the other 'Cold War' is over,
the real cold war has begun." ...
The Myth of the Powell Memo
A secret note from a future Supreme Court justice did not give rise to today's conservative infrastructure.
Something more insidious did.
By Mark Schmitt
At one end of a block of Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., sometimes known as "Think
Tank Row"-the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution are neighbors-a
monument to intellectual victory has been under reconstruction for a year. It will soon be the
home of the American Enterprise Institute, a 60,000-square-foot Beaux-Arts masterpiece where Andrew
Mellon lived when he was treasury secretary during the 1920s. AEI purchased the building with
a $20 million donation from one of the founders of the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm.
Right Moves
The Conservative Think Tank in American Political Culture Since 1945
By Jason Stahl
In the story of the rise of the political right in America since the late 1970s, think tanks,
and sometimes the glorious edifices in which they are housed, have played an iconic role. The
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the libertarian Cato Institute, along
with their dozens of smaller but well-funded cousins, have seemed central to the "war of ideas"
that drove American policy in the 1980s, in the backlash of 1994, in the George W. Bush era, and
again after 2010.
For the center left, these institutions have become role models. While Brookings or the Urban
Institute once eschewed ideology in favor of mild policy analysis or dispassionate technical assessment
of social programs, AEI and Heritage seemed to build virtual war rooms for conservative ideas,
investing more in public relations than in scholarship or credibility, and nurturing young talent
(or, more often, the glib but not-very-talented). Their strategy seemed savvier. Conservative
think tanks nurtured supply-side economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and the entire agenda
of the Reagan administration, which took the form of a twenty-volume tome produced by Heritage
in 1980 called Mandate for Leadership.
In the last decade or so, much of the intellectual architecture of the conservative think tanks
has been credited to a single document known as the Powell Memo. This 1971 note from future Supreme
Court Justice Lewis Powell to a Virginia neighbor who worked at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged
business to do more to respond to the rising "New Left," countering forces such as Ralph Nader's
nascent consumer movement in the courts, in media, and in academia....
DeDude -> anne... , -1
The part where the neo-con-men get the scientific process wrong is where they begin with the conclusion,
before they even collect any facts. And then they whine that Universities are full of Liberals.
No they are full of scientists - and they are supposed to be.
What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster.
That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats
only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society
and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of
draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost
completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
(see
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/
)
I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join
Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.
BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates,
close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical
"kiss up, kick down personality".
The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".
Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA
diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am
the law".
Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult
to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:
== quote ==
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current
U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people
chose, and to discuss any problem.
== end of quote ==
Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally
he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.
Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she
has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by commenters?
Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
"... A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin, Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically." ..."
"... Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared of their own country. ..."
"... France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who will save America from its own Vichy regime? ..."
For the French, revisiting the time period when the Vichy Regime ruled what was left of the
country after its humiliating defeat by the Germans in 1940 involves trauma. But the lessons
imparted by those dark years of Nazi occupation transcend historical era and nationality,
touching upon equivalent circumstances in the United States for the past few years. Equivalent,
not identical: clearly, phalanxes of Nazi troops aren't goose-stepping down Pennsylvania
Avenue....
A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin,
Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining
chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities
on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically."
France's new leader, the 84-year-old Marshall Petain, was a deeply reactionary veteran who loathed
the Third Republic crushed by the Germans and vowed to take advantage of France's crisis to obliterate
the past and install a centralized, authoritarian government. His rejection of liberalism, egalitarianism,
and democracy prompted measures designed to return France to its pre-revolutionary roots: cities,
industrial plants, and factories were rejected in favor of a return to nature, to villages and small
shops. On top of this heap of nouveau-peasantry loomed the Marshall himself, whose grandfatherly
physiognomy was plastered on buildings in public arenas all over the country to remind French subjects
of who was in charge.
Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's
disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed
their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's
measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie
of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared
of their own country.
... .. ..
Further, like his aged counterpart before him, President Obama took advantage of a crisis to
"transform" American institutions instead of grappling with the country's main problems --
national debt, unemployment, recession, and burgeoning entitlement costs, to name a few. He made
matters worse by augmenting entitlements, exploding federal deficits, exacerbating unemployment,
and blaming others for the inevitable mess that ensued...
... ... ...
France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham
Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who
will save America from its own Vichy regime?
Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with
The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy
novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something
that does relate to Krugmans post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over
the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately though the Democratic Party hasn't
been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people
call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure
their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be
damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative
of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and
switch".
Paul Krugman's recent posts have been most peculiar. Several have looked uncomfortably like special
pleading for political figures he likes, notably Hillary Clinton. He has, in my judgement, stooped
rather far down in attacking people well below him in the public relations food chain
Perhaps the most egregious and clearest cut case is his refusal to address the substance of a
completely legitimate, well-documented article by David Dayen outing Krugman, and to a lesser degree,
his fellow traveler Mike Konczal, in abjectly misrepresenting Sanders' financial reform proposals
The Krugman that was early to stand up to the Iraq War, who was incisive before and during the
crisis has been very much in absence since Obama took office. It's hard to understand the loss of
intellectual independence. That may not make Krugman any worse than other Democratic party apparatchiks,
but he continues to believe he is other than that, and the lashing out at Dayen looks like a wounded
denial of his current role. Krugman and Konczal need to be seen as what they are: part of the Vichy
Left brand cover for the Democratic party messaging apparatus. Krugman, sadly, has chosen to diminish
himself for a not very worthy cause.
"... That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure. ..."
"... But, mostly the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash back on their credit cards. ..."
"... I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations. ..."
"... The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of that control. ..."
"... Never mind how powerful their tools, managers who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility. My advice to them: feed that to your big data and your AI, right along with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a dead end. ..."
"... it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is: a: worse b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism. A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa. ..."
"... Trump is a dispicable human being…but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change…but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"! ..."
But, isn't "boring" an argument too? A third way to
dissolve all the noisier contention, make it meaningless and then complain of
its meaninglessness?
I haven't quite recovered from merian challenging your argument from pattern
and precedent as decontextualized and ahistorical or then announcing that she
was not a supporter of Clinton after having previously justified her own
unqualified (though time-limited) support for Clinton.
I see the rhetorical power of Luttwak's "perfect non-sequitur", which Adam
Curtis explains as a basis for the propaganda of the inverted totalitarian
state in some detail. I've long argued that the dominating power of
neoliberalism - not just as the ideology of the managerial classes, but as the
one ideology to rule them all at the end of history - has to do with the way
(left) neoliberals argue almost exclusively with conservative libertarians
(right neoliberals). It is in that narrow, bounded dynamic of one completely
synthetic and artificial thesis with another closely related and also
completely synthetic and artificial antithesis that we got stuck in the
Groundhog Day, where history tails off after a few weeks and evidence consists
of counterfactuals projected a few weeks into the future.
It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds
like one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out
anyone's ability to figure out what is going on. And, really, nothing is going
on - or rather, nothing about which voters have a realistic choice to make.
That's the problem. (Left) neoliberalism was born* in the decision to abandon
the actual representation of a common interest (and most especially a working
class interest). Instead, it is all about combining an atomizing politics of
personal identity with Ezra Klein's wonkiness, where statistics are used to
filter out more information than revealed and esoteric jargon obscures the
rest. Paul Krugman, Reagan Administration veteran and Enron advisor, becomes
the authoritative voice of the moderate centre-Left.
*That's why the now ancient Charles Peters' Neoliberal Manifesto matters -
not because Peters was or is important, but because it was such a clear and
timely statement of the managerial / professional class Left abandoning
advocacy for the poor or labor interests against the interests of capital,
corporations and the wealthy. The basic antagonism of interests in politics was
to be abandoned and what was gained was financial support from capital and
business corporations. The Liberal Class, the institutional foundations of
which were eroding rapidly in the 1980s, with the decline of social
affiliation, mainline Protestant religions, public universities, organized
labor could no longer be relied upon to fund the chattering classes so the
chattering classes represented by Peters found a new gig and rationalized it,
and that is the (left) neoliberalism we know today as Vox speak.
The 10% gets free a completely artificial (because not rooted in class
interests or any interests) ideology bought and paid for by the 1/10th of 1%
and the executive class) ideology, but it gets it free and as long as the
system continues to lumber along, employing them (which makes them the 10%)
they remain complacent. They don't understand their world, but their world
seems to work anyway, so why worry? Any apparently alarming development can be
normalized by confusion and made boring.
More than 20 years after Luttwak / McMurtry, I would think inability of the
10% to understand how the world works might be the most worrying thing of all.
The 10% are the people who make the world work in a technical sense - that is
the responsibility of the professionals and professional managers, after all.
That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized
economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive
classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate
change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to
accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well
Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least
some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she
can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure.
But, mostly
the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash
back on their credit cards.
I read with fascination articles about the travails
of that Virginia Tech guy who persisted in the Flint Water case; again, a
lonely figure.
I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and
therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is
quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations.
And yet…. In the more or less cobwebbed corners of the Internet, like CT, we
are in fact having this conversation, and others much like it - even when, as
inevitably happens, it leaves us vulnerable to accusations of leftist onanism
by self-appointed realists of the status quo. They may not be easy to ignore,
but knowing that their opinions can't possibly be as securely held as they
claim, and are in fact more vulnerable to events than they're capable of
imagining, we shouldn't feel obliged to pay their denunciations any more
attention than they deserve.
The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich
are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to
control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of
that control.
If we really want to foster a future in which institutions are
stable again, and can successfully design and implement effective protections
for the general welfare, we're going to have to get a lot more comfortable with
chaos, unintended consequences, the residual perversity, in short, of
large-scale human interactions.
Never mind how powerful their tools, managers
who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility.
My advice to them: feed
that
to your big data and your AI, right along
with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and
devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a
dead end.
> It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds like
one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out anyone's
ability to figure out what is going on.
Pretty sure it is. Precisely because
it is not left neoliberalism versus
right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is:
a: worse
b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.
A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa.
The 50-55 year old male, white, college-educated former exemplar of the
American Dream, still perhaps living in his lavishly-equipped suburban
house, with two or three cars in the driveway, one or two children in
$20,000 per annum higher education (tuition, board and lodging – all extras
are extra) and an ex-job 're-engineered' out of existence, who now exists on
savings, second and third mortgages and scant earnings as a self-described
'consultant', has become a familiar figure in the contemporary United
States.
It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy
land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a
personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny.
They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a
fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict
on the poor.
It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get
implemented…. It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits
but it makes us look like we care."
boo321
, 14 Oct 2016 07:53
Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making
these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major
institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a
toss for their suffering.
Trump is a dispicable human being…but he has touched those who are
desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the
change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've
had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for
change…but the establishment made sure he could not win by the
manipulation of the "super delegate vote"!
"... the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore First-World leftists need to shut up". ..."
"... in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all. ..."
"... It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists) but also of the men for being no better than the pigs. ..."
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of
aristocracy.
This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law
of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual
literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".
At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic"
mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists
always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in in many countries where low rank military
officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to
hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.
Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the
law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members
of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.
USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal
elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.
In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the
social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite
(actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it
is even higher in the former Eastern block).
Re Will G-R: Your constant references to "liberals" as if they are all hideous, foul, disgusting,
and evil, dripping in blood of the victims of global capitalism's exploitative ways (do you
have a smartphone by the way? [I don't]; do you know who mined its ingredients?) is getting
perhaps a bit, um, repetitive.
If by liberals we would understand neoliberals, this might not be an overstatement. Neoliberals
destroy the notion of social justice and pervert the notion of the "rule of the law". See, for
example, The Neo-Liberal State by Raymond Plant
…social justice is incompatible with the rule of law because its demands cannot be embodied
in general and impartial rules; and rights have to be the rights to non-interference rather
than understood in terms of claims to resources because rules against interference can be understood
in general terms whereas rights to resources cannot. There is no such thing as a substantive
common good for the state to pursue and for the law to embody and thus the political pursuit
of something like social justice or a greater sense of solidarity and community lies outside
the rule of law.
… … …
…But surely, it might be argued, a nomocratic state and its laws have to
acknowledge some set of goals. It cannot be impartial or indifferent to all goals.
Law cannot be pointless. It cannot be totally non-instrumental. It has to facilitate
the achievement of some goals. If this is recognized, it might be argued, it will
modify the sharpness of the distinction between a nomocratic and telocratic state,
between a civil association and an enterprise association.
IMHO for neoliberals social justice and the rule of law is applicable only to Untermensch.
For Ubermensch (aka "creative class") it undermines their individual freedom and thus they need
to be above the law.
To ensure their freedom and cut "unnecessary and undesirable interference" of the society in
their creative activities the role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market
as the playground for their "creativity" (note "free" as in "free ride", not "fair")
LFC, the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated
often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore
First-World leftists need to shut up". The point about repetition is particularly ironic,
though, coming in the midst of yet another repetitive liberal circlejerk about Donald Trump blowing
the Gabriel's trumpet of a civilization-destroying neo-Nazi apocalypse.
likbez: "USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to
neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless."
One doesn't even have to compare different types of government to grasp this point, when
in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres
are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all.
It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't
just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs.
"It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just
an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs."
Olens defended Georgia's gay marriage ban and sued the federal government over the transgender
bathroom directive. That's why students organized Monday afternoon's protest and drafted a petition
that has more than 5,000 signatures.
In the petition, students ask the Georgia Board of Regents to not appoint Olens as KSU's next
president.One student, who wouldn't give 11Alive his name, said he's disappointed.
"The support groups would probably be disbanded and not to mention the scholarships that are
offered for people active in LGBT rights," he said
After the rally ended, he stayed around to continue the protest.
"I feel it's my duty. I'm a student here and I have to make sure the school is safe for me
and students. If this place becomes unsafe, I'd have to leave," he said.
Oh for pity's sake, this snowflake thinks hiring the Georgia AG as the school's president would
lead to anti-gay pogroms? I hate the way this Orwellian "safe space" concept has become the cudgel
with which campus progressives use to club the expression of opinions with which they disagree. Anyway,
the reader comments:
Okay, a couple things. First, KSU gives scholarships for "people active in LGBT rights"? I'd
love to know details on that. Second, note the alleged disqualification here: Olens defended the
laws of his state - laws that were created by a democratically elected legislature. In other words,
he did the job he is elected to do. But as you and I know, this now constitutes Thoughtcrime.
Leonard Witt, a KSU professor, wrote
a column
criticizing the choice in which he concludes: "Let's, this time, show the world that
Cobb County carries the torch for all its diverse communities." Yes, diverse communities - as
long as one of those communities isn't Christians or people fulfilling the duties of their elected
office.
Now, I should note that as a college professor myself I happen to agree with Witt's other point:
that a college president should be an academic, not someone plucked from business or politics.
If I taught at KSU, I would oppose Olens for that reason. But this is something different: opposition
to him because of something he believes, and because he did his job according to the constitution
of the state of Georgia.
Eventually we're going to have to call explanations like Witt's the "Eich Maneuver," as an
homage to Mozilla's preposterous explanation that they had to fire Eich because of how much they
value diversity of viewpoint.
The reader says to be sure to note this reasoning from KSU's Prof. Witt (what follows is a quote
from Witt's column):
Already the KSU LGBTQ community members are signing petitions. A headline in Project Q, a popular
Atlanta blog, screams out "Gay marriage bigot Sam Olens to become KSU president." Unfair? Perhaps,
but how do we know,since the selection process is coming from the darkest corners of state government.
As attorney general, Olens ardently opposed both gay marriage and now gender neutral bathrooms.
Hence, the headline.
Given Cobb County's history, try as the chancellor may argue otherwise, important national
constituencies are going to be outraged about the secret meetings aimed at appointing a candidate
who they know will infuriate the LGBTQ community and their allies at Kennesaw State, in Cobb County
and throughout the state and nation.
The nation's largest foundations that support higher education demand respecting diversity
in all its forms. An active foe of gay marriage or transgender neutral bathrooms for KSU president?
Cobb County again? We have better places to put our money. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Nike and
just about every other major corporation may well openly or silently boycott Kennesaw State University.
Plus, the tainted brand name will not exactly be a student resume builder.
Says the reader:
Echoes of Indiana and RFRA.
If we don't keep up with the LGBT agenda, no corporations will
want to do business with us!
And note the fear that we could "infuriate the LGBTQ community
and their allies." If I even mentioned to my academic colleagues that something could upset we
Christians and our allies, I'd probably hear laughter.
We should be hearing Republican politicians, churches, and civic leaders calling this stuff out
for what it is: diversity McCarthyism. Olens may or may not be qualified to run the university, but
what these SJWs are attempting is frightening - or should be. Where does it stop?
Bobby M. Wilson
(bio)
In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their
predicaments or circumstances according to the workings of the market as
opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional forces like
racism and economic inequality. The market exchange is an ethic in itself,
capable of acting as a guide for all of human action (
Harvey
2005
). In many ways, the discourse of neoliberalism represents a radical
inversion of the notion of "human agency," as conceived through the
prophetic politics of Martin Luther King. As originally conceived, human
agency focused on people's capability of doing things that can make a
difference, that is, to exercise some sort of power and self-reliance. As a
central concern among many in the social sciences, this concept sought to
expose the power of human beings. Reverend Martin Luther King's prophetic
politics were determinedly "this worldly" and social in their focus. He
encouraged people to direct their attention to matters of social justice
rather than concern for personal well-being or salvation. He believed in the
power of people to make a difference.
But the concept of "justice" has
been reconstructed to fit neoliberal political and economic objectives. This
reconstruction is part of a larger discourse to reconstitute liberalism to
include human conduct. The invisible hand of the market not only allocates
resources but also the conduct of citizens. Economie agency is no longer
just about the market allocation of resources, but the allocation of people
into cultural worlds. This represents a radical inversion of the economic
agent as conceived by the liberalism of Adam Smith. As agents, humans are
implicated as players and partners in the market game. The context in which
individuals define themselves is privatized rather than publicized; the
focus of concerns is on the self rather than the collective. Power operates
internally, not externally, by inducing people to aim for
"self-improvement." The effect has been to negate the "social" in issues of
"justice" or "injustice." Individual subjects are rendered responsible,
shifting the responsibility for social risk (unemployment, poverty, etc.) to
the individual.
Black inner city spaces compete freely within a deregulated global
market. Central cities of large metropolitan areas have become the epicenter
of segregation. In 1988, approximately 55% of black students in the South
attended schools that were 50% to 100% minorities. By 2000, almost 70%
attended such schools. Only 15% of intensely segregated white schools are
schools of concentrated poverty, whereas 88% of the intensely segregated
racial minority schools are schools of concentrated poverty. Fifty years
after the
Brown
decision, we continue to heap more disadvantages on
children in poor communities. The community where a student resides
[End Page 97]
and goes to school is now the best predictor of
whether that student will go to college and succeed after graduation. High
school graduation rates in the South were lowest in the most isolated
black-majority districts-those separated by both race and poverty. Across
the South, we have created public and private systems that encourage the
accumulation of wealth and privilege in mostly white and socially isolated
communities separated by ever greater distances from the increasingly
invisible working poor (
Orfield
and Mei 2004
).
The most fundamental difference between today's segregated black
communities and those of the past is the much higher level of joblessness (
Wilson
1997
). Black unemployment and poverty level consistently remains at
twice the level of the total population. Access to jobs, already
disproportionately tenuous for black workers, has become even more
constricted in the current era of global capital. Without meaningful work,
the impact of racially segregated communities is much more pervasive and
devastating. The vast majority of intensely racial and ethnic segregated
minority places face a growing surplus labor determined to survive by any
means necessary. Two-thirds of the people in prison are now racial and
ethnic minorities. The proportion of young black males who are incarcerated,
on parole, or on probation nationwide continues to reach record levels.
Blacks represent 12.3% of the total population but make up 43.7% of the
incarcerated population. The number of black men in prisons increased from
508,800 in...
"... Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting. A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked questions. ..."
"... - Eduardo Galeano ..."
"... Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." ..."
"... One way of understanding Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. ..."
"... As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital ..."
"... As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy ..."
"... Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one's individual needs and self-interests. ..."
"... The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena. ..."
"... They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military. ..."
"... dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies, and material goods to the machineries of disposability. ..."
"... Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering, cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility, and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2). ..."
"... In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it. ..."
"... What is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... London Review of Books ..."
"... This is not a diary ..."
"... Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment ..."
"... Against the terror of neoliberalism ..."
"... Against the violence of organized forgetting: beyond America's disimagination machine ..."
"... Debt: The First 5,000 Years ..."
"... The democracy project: a history, a crisis, a movement ..."
"... 5th assessment report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change ..."
"... Unlearning With Hannah Arendt ..."
"... Agnonistics: thinking the world politically ..."
Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with
an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting.
A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked
questions.
- Eduardo Galeano
Neoliberalism's Assault on Democracy
Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of
the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." He goes on to say that
"We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way
of imagining the end of the world" (Jameson 2003). One way of understanding
Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which
the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized,
there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting
that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage,
and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability,
is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more
recent scientific reports on the threat of ecological disaster from researchers
at the University of Washington, NASA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reinforce this dystopian possibility. [1]
To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the
Public Intellectual Project, click
here.
As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of
a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating
the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux
2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes "the deregulation of finance,
privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare
programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws" (Yates
2013). As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market
rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy,
consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational
belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for
structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities,
subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded
in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of
ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics
and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization
of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and
public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade
in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of
financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state
and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural
apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves
as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and
supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism
and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further
one's individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect,
and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization
and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult
to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations.
As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught
of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly
weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear,
and the increasing use of state violence. One consequence is that it has become
more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the
widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers,
and other segments of society - now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes
which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the
ruling economic and political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices
heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree
to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing
what Chantal Mouffe calls "a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing
societies" under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This
is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students,
have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States,
and England.
The Rise of Disposable Youth
What is particularly distinctive about the current historical conjuncture
is the way in which young people, particularly low-income and poor minority
youth across the globe, have been increasingly denied any place in an already
weakened social order and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central
to how a number of countries across the globe define their future. The plight
of youth as disposable populations is evident in the fact that millions of them
in countries such as England, Greece, and the United States have been unemployed
and denied long term benefits. The unemployment rate for young people in many
countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50
per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find
work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States,
young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food
stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing
surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living
far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a
rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the
political arena.
This is the first generation, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which
the "plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation." (Bauman
2012a; 2012b; 2012c) He rightly insists that today's youth have been "cast in
a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory
or permanent" (Bauman 2004:76). Youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged
place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal
notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence
of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak,
and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed
next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out
pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce
a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military.
Students, in particular, found themselves in a world in which unrealized aspirations
have been replaced by dashed hopes and a world of onerous debt (Fraser 2013;
On the history of debt, see Graeber 2012).
The Revival of the Radical Imagination
Within the various regimes of neoliberalism that have emerged particularly
in North since the late 1970s, the ethical grammars that drew attention to the
violence and suffering withered or, as in the United States, seemed to disappear
altogether, while dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies,
and material goods to the machineries of disposability. The fear of losing everything,
the horror of an engulfing and crippling precarity, the quest to merely survive,
the rise of the punishing state and police violence, along with the impending
reality of social and civil death, became a way of life for the 99 percent in
the United States and other countries. Under such circumstances, youth were
no longer the place where society reveals its dreams, but increasingly hid its
nightmares. Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones
of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering,
cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility,
and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2).
In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance
and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the
possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it.
Such movements produced a new understanding of politics based on horizontal
forms of collaboration and political participation. In doing so, they resurrected
revitalized and much needed questions about class power, inequality, financial
corruption, and the shredding of the democratic process. They also explored
as well as what it meant to create new communities of mutual support, democratic
modes of exchange and governance, and public spheres in which critical dialogue
and exchanges could take place (For an excellent analysis on neoliberal-induced
financial corruption, see Anderson 2004).
A wave of youth protests starting in 2010 in Tunisia, and spreading across
the globe to the United States and Europe, eventually posed a direct challenge
to neoliberal modes of domination and the corruption of politics, if not democracy
itself (Hardt & Negri 2012). The legitimating, debilitating, and depoliticizing
notion that politics could only be challenged within established methods of
reform and existing relations of power was rejected outright by students and
other young people across the globe. For a couple of years, young people transformed
basic assumptions about what politics is and how the radical imagination could
be mobilized to challenge the basic beliefs of neoliberalism and other modes
of authoritarianism. They also challenged dominant discourses ranging from deficit
reduction and taxing the poor to important issues that included poverty, joblessness,
the growing unmanageable levels of student debt, and the massive spread of corporate
corruption. As Jonathan Schell argued, youth across the globe were enormously
successfully in unleashing "a new spirit of action", an expression of outrage
fueled less by policy demands than by a cry of collective moral and political
indignation whose message was
'Enough!' to a corrupt political, economic and media establishment that
hijacked the world's wealth for itself… sabotaging the rule of law, waging
interminable savage and futile wars, plundering the world's finite resources,
and lying about all this to the public [while] threatening Earth's life
forms into the bargain. (Schell 2011)
Yet, some theorists have recently argued that little has changed since 2011,
in spite of this expression of collective rage and accompanying demonstrations
by youth groups across the globe.
The Collapse or Reconfiguration of Youthful Protests?
Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Politaki,
writing in The Guardian, argue that as the "economic and social
disaster unfolded in 2012 and 2013", youth in Greece, France, Portugal, and
Spain have largely been absent from "politics, social movements and even from
the spontaneous social networks that have dealt with the worst of the catastrophe"
(Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014). Yet, at the same time, they insist that more and
more young people have been "attracted to nihilistic ends of the political spectrum,
including varieties of anarchism and fascism" (Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014).
This indicates that young people have hardly been absent from politics. On the
contrary, those youth moving to the right are being mobilized around needs that
simply promise the swindle of fulfillment. This does not suggest youth are becoming
invisible. On the contrary, the move on the part of students and others to the
right implies that the economic crisis has not been matched by a crisis of ideas,
one that would propel young people towards left political parties or social
formations that effectively articulate a critical understanding of the present
economic and political crisis. Missing here is also a strategy to create
and sustain a radical democratic political movement that avoids cooptation of
the prevailing economic and political systems of oppression now dominating the
United States, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, France, and England, among other countries.
This critique of youthful protesters as a suspect generation is repeated
in greater detail by Andrew R. Myers in Student Pulse (Myers 2012).
He argues that deteriorating economic and educational conditions for youth all
over Europe have created not only a profound sense of political pessimism among
young people, but also a dangerous, if not cynical, distrust towards established
politics. Regrettably, Myers seems less concerned about the conditions that
have written young people out of jobs, a decent education, imposed a massive
debt on them, and offers up a future of despair and dashed hopes than the alleged
unfortunate willingness of young people to turn their back on traditional parties.
Myers argues rightly that globalization is the enemy of young people and is
undermining democracy, but he wrongly insists that traditional social democratic
parties are the only vehicles and hope left for real reform. As such, Myers
argues that youth who exhibit distrust towards established governments and call
for the construction of another world symbolize political defeat, if not cynicism
itself. Unfortunately, with his lament about how little youth are protesting
today and about their lack of engagement in the traditional forms of politics,
he endorses, in the end, a defense of those left/liberal parties that embrace
social democracy and the new labor policies of centrist-left coalitions. His
rebuke borders on bad faith, given his criticism of young people for not engaging
in electoral politics and joining with unions, both of which, for many youth,
rightfully represent elements of a reformist politics they reject.
It is ironic that both of these critiques of the alleged passivity of youth
and the failure of their politics have nothing to say about the generations
of adults that failed these young people - that is, what disappears in these
narratives is the fact that an older generation accepted the "realization that
one generation no longer holds out a hand to the next" (Knott 2011:ix). What
is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and
dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who
shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments
and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and
willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization.
In fact, what was distinctive about the protesting youth across the globe
was their rejection to the injustices of neoliberalism and their attempts to
redefine the meaning of politics and democracy, while fashioning new forms of
revolt (Hardt & Negri 2012; Graeber 2013). Among their many criticisms, youthful
protesters argued vehemently that traditional social democratic, left, and liberal
parties suffered from an "extremism of the center" that made them complicitous
with the corporate and ruling political elites, resulting in their embrace of
the inequities of a form of casino capitalism which assumed that the market
should govern the entirety of social life, not just the economic realm (Hardt
& Negri 2012:88).
Henry A.
Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship
in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a
Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent
books include: Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013),
America's Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013)
Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014), and The Violence
of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America's Disimagination Machine (City
Lights, 2014). The Toronto Star named Henry Giroux one of the twelve Canadians
changing the way we think! Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors.
His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed
the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess,
as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them.
The rich shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other
societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to senior party members,
senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money
at all).
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary
rival, but in this instance I think the debunking is merited. It's quite
possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and
that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession with rich people didn't cut very deep.
Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change
as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the
way they think, does not change the fact that, while they have more money,
they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone
else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that an Alpha Chimp has
fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's.
According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between
Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other
people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasnt about Fitzgerald
and wasnt even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more attacking the "rich have
more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald
got the basic idea right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of
those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered
by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we
are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life
for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below
us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored
of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race" but ultimately became
disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found
they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked
him."
"... I think the key difference between successful politicians and business people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians, you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years after they go into politics. ..."
"... "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." ..."
"... Neoclassical economics hid the work of the Classical Economists and the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. ..."
"... Once you hide this it is easy to make it look as though the interests of business and the wealthy are the same. ..."
"... There should not really be any tax on "earned" income, all tax should fall on "unearned" income to subside the productive side of the economy with low cost housing and services. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business. ..."
"... "…who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." Adam Smith just described the modern Republican Party and movement Conservatives. ..."
"... The children of the US elite were the storm troopers of this ideology and they headed out from their elite US universities to bring this new ideology to developing nations. ..."
"... "The Chicago Boys" headed out from the University of Chicago to bring the new way to South American nations and "The Berkley Mafia" headed out from the University of Berkeley, California to bring the new way to Indonesia ..."
"... Any means were deemed acceptable to implement the one true solution and the new ideology, e.g. torture, terror, death squads, snatching people off the streets and making them disappear permanently. Any left wing resistance had to be quashed by whatever means necessary ..."
"... Their revolutions always massively increased inequality, a few at the top became fabulously wealthy and extreme and widespread poverty became prevalent at the bottom. Mixing with the people at the top, the elite US storm troopers deemed their revolutions a huge success. This ideology was ready to roll out across the world. ..."
"... Under this new ideology, the UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier with a BTL portfolio, living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned" income of generation rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Obfuscating the relationship between free markets and the role of government is coming to an end. So much failure and misdirection cannot hide forever. The cognitive dissonance set up in society is unsustainable- people don't like to feel or experience crazy. ..."
"... Markets are stronger and healthier when backed by functioning government. Defining what good government is and demanding it is required today. That is the revolutionary force, finally turning back the negative campaign against government and demanding good government- fighting for it. ..."
"... "Enoch Powell…once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most business leaders." But that is also what they say about love. No good end can come of it. ..."
"... This bit of convenient fiction caught my eye: "Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than the narrow interest of investors." ..."
"... Perhaps political leaders should do this but, as has been recently shown, there is no basis in reality that this is any kind of requirement (as in "must"). ..."
"... Perhaps his use of "must" in this case is talking about the intrinsic requirement. In other words, even if they are managing negatively for some and positively for others, they are managing for all. ..."
Electorates believe that business leaders are qualified for and likely to
be effective in politics. Yet, with some notable exceptions, business people
have rarely had successful political careers.
The assumption is that corporate vision, leadership skills, administrative
skills and a proven record of wealth creation will translate into political
success. It presupposes personal qualities such drive, ambition and ruthlessness.
The allure is also grounded in the romantic belief that outsiders can fix all
that is wrong with the political process. The faith is misplaced.
First, the required skills are different.
Successful business leaders generally serve a technical apprenticeship in
the business, industry or a related profession giving them familiarity with
the firm's activities. Political success requires party fealty, calculating
partisanship, managing coalitions and networking. It requires a capacity to
engage in the retail electoral process, such as inspirational public speaking
and an easy familiarity with voters in a wide variety of settings. It requires
formidable powers of fund raising to finance campaigns. Where individuals shift
from business to politics in mid or later life, he or she is at a significant
disadvantage to career political operatives who have had years to build the
necessary relationships and organisation to support political aspirations.
Second, the scope of the task is different. A nation is typically larger
than a business. The range of issues is broader, encompassing economics, finance,
welfare, health, social policy as well as defence and international relations.
Few chief executives will, during a single day, have to consider budgetary or
economic issues, health policy, gender matters, privacy concerns, manage involvement
in a foreign conflict in between meeting and greeting a range of visitors varying
from schoolchildren to foreign dignitaries as well as attending to party political
matters.
Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than
the narrow interest of investors. They must take into account the effect of
decisions on a wide range of constituencies including many implacably opposed
to their positions.
Third, business objectives, such as profit maximisation, are narrow, well
defined and constant. Political objectives are amorphous and ideological. The
emphasis is on living standards, security and social justice. Priorities between
conflicting objectives shift constantly. The benefits of decisions by governments
in infrastructure, education and welfare are frequently difficult to measure
and frequently will not emerge for a long time.
Business decisions rarely focus on the societal impact. Firms can reduce
workforce, shift production overseas, seek subsidies or legally minimise taxes.
Politicians must deal with the side effects of individual profit maximisation
decisions such as closed factories, reduced employment, welfare and retraining
costs, security implications as well as social breakdown and inequality or exclusion.
Fourth, the operating environment is different. Businesses usually operate
within relatively defined product-market structures. In contrast, governments
operate in a complex environment shaped by domestic and foreign factors, many
of which they do not control or influence. Government actions require co-operation
across different layers of government or countries. Businesses can withdraw
from certain activities, while government do not have the same option.
Fifth, within boundaries set by laws and regulations, business leaders enjoy
great freedom and power to implement their policies. Boards of directors and
shareholders exercise limited control, usually setting broad financial parameters.
They do not intervene in individual decisions. Most important government actions
require legislative or parliamentary support. Unlike commercial operations,
government face restrictions, such as separation of powers, restraints on executive
or governmental action and international obligations.
Business leaders have unrivalled authority over their organisation based
on threats (termination) or rewards (remuneration or promotion). Political leaders
cannot fire legislators. They face significant barriers in rewarding or replacing
public servants. Policy implementation requires negotiations and consensus.
It requires overcoming opposition from opposing politicians, factions within
one's own party, supporters, funders and the bureaucracy. It requires overcoming
passively resistance from legislators and public servants who can simply outlast
the current incumbent, whose tenure is likely to be shorter than their own.
The lack of clear goals, unrivalled authority and multiple and shifting power
centres means that political power is more limited than assumed Many Presidents
of the United States, regarded as the most powerful position on earth, have
found that they had little ability to implement their agendas.
Sixth, unless they choose to be, business leaders are rarely public figures
outside business circles. Politicians cannot avoid constant public attention.
Modern political debate and discourse has become increasingly tabloid in tone,
with unprecedented levels of invective and ridicule. There is no separation
of the public and the personal. Business leaders frequently find the focus on
personal matters as well as the tone of criticism discomforting.
There are commonalities. Both fields attract a particular type of individual.
In addition, paraphrasing John Ruskin, successful political and business leaders
not only know what must be done but actually do what must be done and do it
when it must be done. A further commonality is the ultimate fate of leaders
generally. Enoch Powell, himself a long-serving Member of the British Parliament,
once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most
business leaders.
I think the key difference between successful politicians and business
people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians,
you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years
of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken
dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing
elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years
after they go into politics.
Much the same seems to apply to military leaders, although off the top
of my head I can think of more successful examples of the latter than of
business people (Eisenhower and De Gaulle come to mind). Berlusconi comes
to mind as a 'successful' politician and businessman, but then Italy does
seem to be an outlier in some respects.
One key difference I think between 'good' politicians and 'good' businesspeople
is in making decisions. Good businesspeople are decisive. Good politicians
never make a decision until they absolutely have to.
This is clearly a consequence of 'The government is like a household'
misinformation campaign, which I think is really conceptualized as 'government
is like a small business.' So why not get a businessman to run the thing?
Interesting point. It also comes out of 30+ years of demonization of
government as being less well run than business, when IMHO the problems
of government are 1. the result of scale (think of how well run GM and Citigroup
were in the mid 200s…and both are better now that they have downsized and
shaped up) and 2. inevitable given that you do not want government employees
making stuff as they go, i.e., overruling the legislature and courts. The
latter point is that some rigidity is part of how government works, and
it's necessary to protect citizens.
Adam Smith on the businessmen you shouldn't trust:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes
from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and
ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined,
not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with
that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to
oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both
deceived and oppressed it."
