the neoliberal vision of the future

[Bernie Gunther]

We could get back to the OP subject?

It's really not much fun arguing with religious fanatics, past a certain point. If someone is going to just redefine the terms of the discussion to suit themselves every time they're in trouble, no real communication is possible.

There's a certain amount of entertainment in poking them to see what they do or calling them names to watch them explode with rage, but those aren't really sustainable.

 

[invisibleplanet]

We could get back to the OP subject?

Good call

 

[onarchy]

It's like a parallel fantasy universe that onarchy lives in.

I agree 100%, but why are you so certain that *YOU* are in the right universe and I am in the wrong one? You have to remember that we liberals view you socialists as completely wacko, you have inverted reality 180 degrees, from egoism to altruism. That inversion results in you being 180 degrees wrong in almost every political issue. Almost everything you believe is good is evil and vice versa. Almost every political view you adhere to leads to death and disaster.

 

[invisibleplanet]

I agree 100%, but why are you so certain that *YOU* are in the right universe and I am in the wrong one? You have to remember that we liberals view you socialists as completely wacko, you have inverted reality 180 degrees, from egoism to altruism. That inversion results in you being 180 degrees wrong in almost every political issue. Almost everything you believe is good is evil and vice versa. Almost every political view you adhere to leads to death and disaster.

Sadly, you are talking about yourself, of your own problems regarding consensus reality; of your own rebellion against standards, authority, structures, etc. You are being subjective, irrational, and reactionary. Almost every prognostication you make reveals more and more about your internal nature, your own failure to grasp concepts and apply them meaningfully, especially within the social context of this particular forum and this particular thread. We're quite bored of your flagrent self-pleasuring promotion.

The topic here is the neoliberal vision of the future.

 

[TruXta]

I agree 100%, but why are you so certain that *YOU* are in the right universe and I am in the wrong one? You have to remember that we liberals view you socialists as completely wacko, you have inverted reality 180 degrees, from egoism to altruism. That inversion results in you being 180 degrees wrong in almost every political issue. Almost everything you believe is good is evil and vice versa. Almost every political view you adhere to leads to death and disaster.

Why are we certain? What makes you think we are? You're the one with the evangelical zeal, the twisting of words to suit your marginal ends, the unending mistaking of assertion as fact (fascism = communism, QED). You're the one that thinks everyone arguing with you is a socialist/fascist/murderer. You're the one that denies and evades simple and verifiable facts (what happened to that example of the benign ants you were using btw?), that misconstrues history (no famine in Ireland, Pinochet was the saviour of the Chilean people).

We tried, we really did.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The standard answer to this given by the proponents of FRB is that interest repayment is solved by increasing the rate of circulation of money so that the rate of circulation matches repayment+interest.

First, that may be a standard answer, but it is certainly not the standard answer.

Second, do you find it convincing?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

On the most basic level, their future vision isn't that much different from the current one - for them at least - just one with an intensification and deepening of current trends/plans. So basically, a continuing downward shift in the labour share of the national income (achieved by intensive and extensive methods - higher productivity at lower wages and longer working day (or two jobs) at lower wages. That's the fundamental thing that their model is based on.

On top of that there an associated shift of the cost of social expenditure onto labour as well, whilst redirecting that social spending onto projects that support the first fundamental aim - state spending to be offload costs that historically came to be viewed as parts of capitals obligations - health, education, infrastructure etc - merit goods to be turned into private profit if you like.

And then, to achieve all this they need to destroy the way that people organise collectively - this is to be done by the above constructing 'human nature' itself - famous Thatcher quote:

In the spirit of getting back to the pre-loon topic under discussion ...

So one interesting question becomes what sort of alliances might arise between different groups of people who feel compelled for whatever reason (immediate economic distress, environmental costs, outrage at injustice, attachment to values based on things other than profitability etc) to resist this reconstruction of all human values in terms of profit?

 

[Idris2002]

Hmmm. Back on topic you say?

A 'vision of the future' implies some sort of stable environment in which that future can be aspired to and implemented. It also implies that there is some way of accurately assessing both one's present environment, and the accurate estimation of how that environment may be reasonably expected to evolve in the short, medium and long term. (by 'environment' I mean both natural, social, and economic).

The crisis that emerged into view in 2008 may well be the first indication that western capitalism has lost its capacity to accurately predict and plan for this future, or at best has had that capacity severely eroded. Stock exchanges that were once supposed to accurately link capital with viable enterprises now act to spur the growth of irrational bubbles, destabilising and collapsing economies in their wake. The results can be seen in Ireland, America, and other places: a mortgaged future is not one in which a vision of any kind can be realised.

(does this make sense?)

 

[Motmakt]

You made the class war personal when your idealogues informed my government. If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention.

And Don't wave your Buddhism like a get-out-of-cunt free card. All life is suffering eh? for someone else.
Christ save me from these people.

I was hoping that telling you of my beliefs would make it easier to accept some criticism. I didn't intend to turn this into a discussion about buddhism, but you seem to have misunderstood it.
Accepting that suffering is and will always be a part of life is only the first step. Once you accept that, you can work with your mind to set you free from this. Since all suffering is subjective, it is
bascially a mental state. For us buddhists it is very sad to see people suffering and still do things which is guaranteed to give them more of the same in the future. This includes anger, which is very
destructive for your self and those around you.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

In the spirit of getting back to the pre-loon topic under discussion ...

So one interesting question becomes what sort of alliances might arise between different groups of people who feel compelled for whatever reason (immediate economic distress, environmental costs, outrage at injustice, attachment to values based on things other than profitability etc) to resist this reconstruction of all human values in terms of profit?

World Social Forum? The "Pink Tide"? The Zapatistas? The anti-cuts movements? The workers movements? Landless peasants movements? Indigenous people's movements? Public health campaigners? The Onarnist Free Staters?

 

[TruXta]

Idris, what makes you think that western capitalism ever had the capacity to accurately predict and plan for this future? I think that gives too much credit to the few people who're doing elite strategising as opposed to the vast majority of capitalists who're mostly focused on the next few quarters worth of earnings.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yeah, it does make sense Idris. I don't see it as vision any more than a cancer cell has vision though. Not in a global sense. You might get e.g. some bankers figuring out a particularly good way to steal a chunk of bailout money, or turn some post-WW2 social capital that a lot of people depend on, like the NHS, into an investment opportunity, but thats vision of a kind local to their immediate concerns of grabbing profit and socialising losses.

I suspect the intent of the OP though was to open up questions like, 'How do the people for whom our governments work expect to deal with e.g. peak oil, global warming or being strung up from lamp-posts by outraged citizens at some point in the easily forseeable future?'

 

[Jeff Robinson]

all suffering is subjective

You and Onan would make a good comedy duo: Sid Objective and Sid Subjective.

 

[Crispy]

I was hoping that telling you of my beliefs would make it easier to accept some criticism. I didn't intend to turn this into a discussion about buddhism, but you seem to have misunderstood it. Accepting that suffering is and will always be a part of life is only the first step. Once you accept that, you can work with your mind to set you free from this. Since all suffering is subjective, it is bascially a mental state. For us buddhists it is very sad to see people suffering and still do things which is guaranteed to give them more of the same in the future. This includes anger, which is very
destructive for your self and those around you.

Anger is an energy. Much suffering has been eliminated from the world by focused anger and action.

EDIT: Sorry, I see there is an attempt to re-rail the thread. Do carry on!

 

[TruXta]

I was hoping that telling you of my beliefs would make it easier to accept some criticism. I didn't intend to turn this into a discussion about buddhism, but you seem to have misunderstood it.
Accepting that suffering is and will always be a part of life is only the first step. Once you accept that, you can work with your mind to set you free from this. Since all suffering is subjective, it is
bascially a mental state. For us buddhists it is very sad to see people suffering and still do things which is guaranteed to give them more of the same in the future. This includes anger, which is very
destructive for your self and those around you.

You're a buddhist who goes with the individualist clap-trap of Onar et al? Ever heard of anatta? For some reason I think you might have read about Buddhism and even spoken to some buddhists, but you haven't really understood what it's about.

 

[Blagsta]

I was hoping that telling you of my beliefs would make it easier to accept some criticism. I didn't intend to turn this into a discussion about buddhism, but you seem to have misunderstood it.
Accepting that suffering is and will always be a part of life is only the first step. Once you accept that, you can work with your mind to set you free from this. Since all suffering is subjective, it is
bascially a mental state. For us buddhists it is very sad to see people suffering and still do things which is guaranteed to give them more of the same in the future. This includes anger, which is very
destructive for your self and those around you.

This is why I can't stand Buddhists.

 

[butchersapron]

In the spirit of getting back to the pre-loon topic under discussion ...

So one interesting question becomes what sort of alliances might arise between different groups of people who feel compelled for whatever reason (immediate economic distress, environmental costs, outrage at injustice, attachment to values based on things other than profitability etc) to resist this reconstruction of all human values in terms of profit?

There's some interesting thoughts/ experience of small scale coalitions forming and acting here:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/theodore050411.html

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Anger is an energy. Much suffering has been eliminated from the world by focused anger and action.

EDIT: Sorry, I see there is an attempt to re-rail the thread. Do carry on!

Well, onar and his mates are quite welcome to join in the re-rail if they want. I just thought it might be better to re-rail onto something more relevant to people's concerns than onar's ego and cult beliefs.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I was hoping that telling you of my beliefs would make it easier to accept some criticism. I didn't intend to turn this into a discussion about buddhism, but you seem to have misunderstood it.
Accepting that suffering is and will always be a part of life is only the first step. Once you accept that, you can work with your mind to set you free from this. Since all suffering is subjective, it is
bascially a mental state. For us buddhists it is very sad to see people suffering and still do things which is guaranteed to give them more of the same in the future. This includes anger, which is very
destructive for your self and those around you.

If all suffering is subjective you won't mind me putting your balls in a vice to see how loud you can scream.

 

[TruXta]

This is why I can't stand Buddhists.

Don't tar everyone with the same brush please. It doesn't have to mean fatalism and apathy, on the contrary compassion is a central feature of Buddhist practices.

 

[Motmakt]

Individual freedom is for me very limited here. If you share your beliefs with the majority (socialism/collectivism of some form), then you will find that almost any political party will share some or most of your views.
Norway is a good country with good people, but i think it could be so much better if the right to freedom from force was respected by the majority (and by extention the state). Most people find it a crime if i gather
up some friends and take money from them, even though i loudly claim that i am only doing so to give it to those who need it more. For some reason they seem to think it's right and proper when the state does it.
Voluntarily helping someone, now that's something i most definately agree with.
I do know alot about buddhism, and i do believe on the absolute level there is only the mind. On the relative level however, we do have to deal with the ego and the illusion of the self. Some more so than others,
which is a constant source of suffering for them.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, it does make sense Idris. I don't see it as vision any more than a cancer cell has vision though. Not in a global sense. You might get e.g. some bankers figuring out a particularly good way to steal a chunk of bailout money, or turn some post-WW2 social capital that a lot of people depend on, like the NHS, into an investment opportunity, but thats vision of a kind local to their immediate concerns of grabbing profit and socialising losses.

I suspect the intent of the OP though was to open up questions like, 'How do the people for whom our governments work expect to deal with e.g. peak oil, global warming or being strung up from lamp-posts by outraged citizens at some point in the easily forseeable future?'

I'd suggest that it might be useful to look at notions of planning or vision in a similar way that Marx demonstrated that the individual capitalist competition produced an average rate of profit across total social capital as a whole, which then can be used to bring to light emerging tendencies rather than outright formal plans.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Individual freedom is for me very limited here.

What are you forced to do that you otherwise wouldn't?

 

[TruXta]

Most people find it a crime if i gather up some friends and take money from them, even though i loudly claim that i am only doing so to give it to those who need it more.

Yeah, theft is usually considered a crime, even if it's your friends you're stealing from. It's right and proper to pay taxes to the state, because it's not theft, it's taxes that go to pay for common goods, like, you know, roads? I don't know about you, but in my limited experience thieves do not spend the proceeds from their loot on fixing potholes and meals on wheels.

 

[Motmakt]

If all suffering is subjective you won't mind me putting your balls in a vice to see how loud you can scream.

All suffering is subjective, because without the subject there is no suffering. It is meaningless to talk about objective suffering. For example, your wish to harm me
to try to prove a point is indicative of your suffering. Your ego felt upset by what i wrote, and it is lashing out in well known patterns of verbal abuse
and threats. Maybe you find it funny or interesting to think about harming people you disagree with. If so, i do hope you see that it is very harmful for yourself.

 

[ymu]

Let's just abolish government and tell industry to sort out its own educated, trained workforce, healthcare, roads, communications and military.

Would they:

1. Get together and decide that the sensible way to do this would be for them all to pay into a pot and collectively purchase the infrastructure, employing a bureaucracy to administer that infrastructure, or

2. Fuck off to a proper grown-up country that understands the real reasons companies establish operations in their economies.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

All suffering is subjective, because without the subject there is no suffering. It is meaningless to talk about objective suffering. For example, your wish to harm me
to try to prove a point is indicative of your suffering. Your ego felt upset by what i wrote, and it is lashing out in well known patterns of verbal abuse
and threats. Maybe you find it funny or interesting to think about harming people you disagree with. If so, i do hope you see that it is very harmful for yourself.

For a supposedly spiritual person, you haven't quite grasped the distinction between angry and humour yet. Although to be fair, English isn't your first language so I can understand why some of the subtleties may have evaded you.

 

[TruXta]

For a supposedly spiritual person, you haven't quite grasped the distinction between angry and humour yet. Although to be fair, English isn't your first language so I can understand why some of the subtleties may have evaded you.

Not that you've been all that subtle tho? A lot of killing talk coming from you Jeff.

 

[SpineyNorman]

All suffering is subjective, because without the subject there is no suffering. It is meaningless to talk about objective suffering. For example, your wish to harm me
to try to prove a point is indicative of your suffering. Your ego felt upset by what i wrote, and it is lashing out in well known patterns of verbal abuse
and threats. Maybe you find it funny or interesting to think about harming people you disagree with. If so, i do hope you see that it is very harmful for yourself.

You appear to be confusing amusement and disbelief with upset and anger. Though when you say that all suffering is subjective (from a randroid that generally means "something that happens to irrational people") then you are spitting on and trivialising the suffering millions of people endure every day. So if you find people are getting angry with you it's not because they disagree with you, it's because you appear to have no capacity for empathy whatsoever, as evidenced by your misanthropic brand of politics.

 

[onarchy]

There can be no "objective" meaning of a word - the closest you can ever get is a kind of inter-subjective consensus on meaning, like we have for words like dog.

Of course concepts can be objective. (words are the names of concepts) Objective means "reality oriented," i.e. corresponds to reality. And an objective concept is one which *optimizes* the correspondence to reality. I.e. an objective concept is the epistemologically most *efficient* concept. The biological function of a concept is to help consciousness reduce the complexity of the enormous amount of perceptual data that is available, while losing as little information as possible. So a concept can be thought of as a compression algorithm. An objective concept is a concept which compresses the data of reality as much as possible with as little loss of information as possible. The more efficient a concept is, the easier it becomes to think and to organize and understand reality around us. People who have sub-optimal or even wrong (i.e. untrue) concepts become suboptimal/bad thinkers.

The concepts of socialists are very very bad because they don't correspond to reality, and if one actually tries to use these concepts to orient in reality one ends up walking off a cliff. That's why socialism always leads down the path of totalitarianism and destruction even though the socialist believes he is riding into the sunset. That's why socialists are wrong about almost everything and misunderstand almost everything that has to do with politics or economics. Their concepts are simply inefficient and sometimes directly wrong, with disaster as a direct and measurable outcome.

The meaning of a word is derived from its history and the agreed contemporary definition. Without this they're useless.

Ah, but words are merely the name of the concepts. There is of course a need to have a common naming convention, but far more important is to have correct, objective CONCEPTS. Concepts are important to our survival, even when we are utterly alone and have no need to communicate with anyone. If Robinsone Crusoe had had a concept stating that fire is the product of prayer to the fire god, or if he had the concept that food was poison then he would find himself dead very quickly. So false or sub-optimal concepts are bad and sometimes even lethal.

And since your definitions differ from those used by every scholar I have ever read, along with the majority of "normal" people who care enough to think about it then it's you who is stretching. Your McCarthy-esque reds under the bed rant isn't really relevant.

The ironic thing here is that you're the McCarthyesque one. You ASSUME that intersubjectivism is true (which means that the majority is always right) and then you PROVE that by showing that you are in a majority. That's a perfect example of "just so" myth making.

Also, please answer littlebabyjesus's question - I'd be interested to hear your answer too.

Why do you care? Everything is subjective, right? There is no right and wrong, right?