the neoliberal vision of the future

[Bernie Gunther]

Has anyone actually directly answered the question yet?

There is no neoliberal vision of the future. It's essentially nihilist in its outlook.

Thing is, the neoliberal approach seeks to subsume all human value to profitability and in its extreme form actually does see a positive virtue in that, while refusing to take any responsibility for e.g. the consequences of industrial agriculture or growing energy use year on year. If science points out the potential consequences of those things, the typical response, at least from the people who've swallowed the kool-aid is to try to claim that science is wrong. So it may have a vision of the future, but it's one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[invisibleplanet]

I just wonder how on earth you can have a meaningful thread about the neoliberal vision of the future when you are wrong on virtually every aspect of politics, economics, history and philosophy? You're living in a parallel universe completely detached from reality and have zero understanding of it. Before you can have a meaningful discussion about the neoliberal vision of the future (or any political topic for that matter) you need to go into rehab to un-brainwash yourself.

I know this sounds pretty arrogant, but how many times have you ever even remotely considered the possibility that we liberals actually are correct and that YOU are the ones who are caught in some psychotic fantasy? Did that even occur to your once? Or are you so power arrogant that you will dismiss even the possibility that you could wrong about virtually everything?

Onar Åm, thank you for bringing to light the vicious vacuity of the libertarian socialist branch. I have been wobbling from libertarianism socialism to classical liberalism over the past two years, and after reading this thread I know that i will never return.

 

[Idris2002]

.

 

[Kizmet]

I have no idea why you are mixing peaceful activity (education, health care, roads, communications) in with forceful activity (military). The government should stay out of all peaceful activity, and only be the final arbiter of force to settle disputes and to protect peaceful people from violators.

ymu just listed some of the generally accepted responsibilities of governance. To be able to produce national standards. Your government seems to consist of merely judiciary and an army. Wouldn't this make it effectively a police state?

There is a third option that you don't consider: just like industry today is profiting from producing all the food, steel, clothes, copper, internet wires, electrical wires, coal, oil, electronics, medicines, phones, cars etc. industry would simply start making roads, health care, education and communications for profit too, and they would do a much, much, much better job than the government.

Maybe they would. But you have no method with which to ensure that. Just a hope.

Given the scale of the investment youre going to have to provide much more than that. Otherwise the accusation is that all you really intend to do is convince someone to give you a chunk of desolate land... give it a fancy name... set up a bank account and a security company.. then sit back and keep your fingers crossed for the cash to roll in. Minimum effort, maximum return.

In terms of ambition I'd give it a 9/10 for wanting to own your own country. But feasibility it rates 3.

To genuinely attract anything other than altruistic investment for starting capital you're going to have to convince investors that there is a guarantee on returns and provide some estimate. That will involve more than just promising low taxes when it's clear you have no idea of how much good governance will cost you. Allowing industry to create your infrastructure means you have little or no control as to the cost required of your state and also the cost of protecting and maintaining this infrastructure should those businesses decide another investment is more likely to give better returns. The less control of your costs you have the more hollow your promises of low taxes and cheap workers. You need to think deeply about those promises.

I don't know if you get the english programme 'Dragon's Den' out there in Norway, but if you do then these words may be quite familiar:

".... for those reasons - I'm out."

 

[nino_savatte]

You are right. That does sound arrogant. Incredibly arrogant.

This is the problem with Randists, they refuse to admit that they are wrong, even when they're presented with incontrovertible evidence. It all stems from Rand and her arrogance: she insisted that her 'epistemology' was the only correct one and that everyone else's was wrong. Onar's claim to being a 'philosopher' is without merit. He's clearly familiar with only one philosopher and that's Rand. Though most philosophers would baulk at the thought of Rand being included as one of their own.

 

[Blagsta]

And yet, every single one in this thread assumes that *I* am wrong in virtually everything. Pretty arrogant, eh?

Seeing as you're the one with their very own definitions of words, not shared by anyone else, and who refuses to provide references for their claims...

 

[Blagsta]

What was the author and title of the last book on Irish history you read?

I'd like to know what the last book on fascism was that he read. I suspect it was that Jonah Goldberg one.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I wonder if there will be an age of consent in Onan's free state. How will you deal with kiddy fiddlers Onan?

 

[invisibleplanet]

Come, let us all join Onar Åm is his fight to prevent the return of feudalism. Anyone who doesn't agree is silly feudalist and can use someone else's gun to rob a bank instead of their own.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Can anyone be bothered to demolish Onan's cod epistemology? I haven't the time til tonight.

I'm tempted but his weird scattergun approach to "debate" means that it'll take ages and I really can't be arsed. I'm ignoring him now. As someone else said above, if he wants to start a thread on "socialists/fascists/communists/subjectivists (all the same innit) then he should do so and I'll engage with him there. But I'm not going to help him further derail what could still be an interesting thread.

 

[fredfelt]

There's wrong and wrong. If we were talking about say the date of the battle of waterloo, you might be wrong or you might be right, but we could easily sort that out.

You aren't wrong like that though, you're doing the equivalent of insisting that 5 is an even number based on a revelation from on high. Pointless to even get into it with you while you do that kind of stuff.

Such as claiming that Singapore is a laissez-faire economy - as onarchy did. Singapore is used as an example of an economy has has rapidly developed precisely because of the protection it gave to national industries and other protectionist measures. I thought about raising this with him to discuss further but decided the better of it as when someone only thinks in right or wrong there's no point having a discussion.

 

[Dillinger4]

And yet, every single one in this thread assumes that *I* am wrong in virtually everything. Pretty arrogant, eh?

It's not an assumption that you are wrong. Arguments have been put forward to debate on how right or wrong you may be.

However, you ignore any and all debate and continue suggesting that you are 100% and anybody who disagrees is a socialist, and is therefore 100% wrong.

Yes, you are very arrogant.

 

[Dillinger4]

This is the problem with Randists, they refuse to admit that they are wrong, even when they're presented with incontrovertible evidence. It all stems from Rand and her arrogance: she insisted that her 'epistemology' was the only correct one and that everyone else's was wrong. Onar's claim to being a 'philosopher' is without merit. He's clearly familiar with only one philosopher and that's Rand. Though most philosophers would baulk at the thought of Rand being included as one of their own.

I know I would.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I just wonder how on earth you can have a meaningful thread about the neoliberal vision of the future when you are wrong on virtually every aspect of politics, economics, history and philosophy? You're living in a parallel universe completely detached from reality and have zero understanding of it. Before you can have a meaningful discussion about the neoliberal vision of the future (or any political topic for that matter) you need to go into rehab to un-brainwash yourself.

I know this sounds pretty arrogant, but how many times have you ever even remotely considered the possibility that we liberals actually are correct and that YOU are the ones who are caught in some psychotic fantasy? Did that even occur to your once? Or are you so power arrogant that you will dismiss even the possibility that you could wrong about virtually everything?

Right, last one then I really am going to ignore you. I have a lot of friends who are liberals. The majority of my university lecturers are liberals. I disagree with them but I don't think I'm right about everything - I know I don't have the answers. Yet none of those people would recognise the warped definitions you're giving to well established concepts. The name we give to concepts can be anything - if we'd instead named what we call money Grunston the concept would still be valid - it's not the name but the definition we give to it that is objective - note that I NEVER said everything is subjective - you put those words in my mouth. So why not use the same definitions as everyone else for these concepts - we have various higher level abstractions we can use to group these lower level concepts together - if you read the article I linked to it explains the ladder of abstraction, which allows us to group various similar though different cases together, it works in an almost identical way to the nested hierarchy we see in evolutionary biology. So if you've identified a group of concepts (what you variously refer to as socialism/fascism/communism) and a set of unique character traits shared only by these cases then go ahead and name it - or if a name already exists use that. What you don't get to do is redefine existing concepts with well established definitions, stretching them to the point where they have absolutely no descriptive power whatsoever, so that all it means is "stuff Onar disagrees with". To paraphrase Sartori (sorry, but it's an interesting piece and it's helped me no end with the way I think about political concepts) instead of getting a generalisation, which is useful in a higher level abstraction, you end up with a mere generality. I know why you do it - people don't tend to like fascism - it has something of a stigma attached to it, it provokes an emotional response. So by grouping these things in with fascism you are able to capitalise on these fears. It might work with the fuckwits who read your blog but sane people see right through it.

Don't expect any more responses from me on this thread - if you want to discuss this stuff any more start another thread so we can continue the discussion we were trying to have before you turned up with your tedious pseudo-politics.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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.

Does something like the movement from lower to higher rates of profit also happen with opportunities to socialise losses? Still trying to get my head around what you mean above ...

 

[nino_savatte]

I was busy writing a blog article about you and your crew of sociopaths here on this forum. I'm using your behavior as evidence of socialist malevolence, and you guys absolutely did not make the job hard. Thank you, thank you so much for showing the world what socialists are really like. It's been a blast.

Also, while the bullying seemed to disappear for a while after I pointed out the glaring neon light self-contradiction of a bully claiming to be an altruist, things are now back to normal it seems.

1. You're playing the victim
2. You're projecting
3. You're engaging in circular reasoning
4. You're using invincible ignorance
5. Your logic is flawed
6. Your feet smell

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes, i am obviously lying about my beliefs because of all the benefits i enjoy on this forum as a practicing buddhist
Freedom from disturbing emotions, liberation from the ego and ulitmately enlightenment is what buddhism is about. It's about happiness without attachment, it's about compassion for all living beings.
I did become a libertarian before i became a buddhist, but they are very compatible. Since i believe in using force only in self-defence, i see the libertarian view of the states rights and tasks to be the best way to implement freedom from violence. I don't believe i have the right to force you to do anything you don't want as long as you are peaceful. If we implemented a state based on this principle, we would experience a society as close to freedom as we can make. I don't believe anarchy would lead to more freedom, as i see the states role of protecting those who can't protect themselves too important.

Are you one of those Buddhists who chants to get rich?

I don't believe anarchy would lead to more freedom, as i see the states role of protecting those who can't protect themselves too important

Tell me why you think this?

 

[8ball]

Has anyone actually directly answered the question yet?

There is no neoliberal vision of the future. It's essentially nihilist in its outlook.

I think the neoliberals (those who believe the idea rather than just use it as a tool to make things go their way) see it as the best chance to make the most of human potential, but don't see it as a signposted road to any kind of utopia. As a political philosophy it's hardly alone in that respect. Even with Marxism you have the struggle, then a kind of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' future, then the real future that it is supposed to eventually lead to, so you get to stay in the 'dictatorship' waiting room as long as is deemed necessary by those who wield the power (depending on how it goes, obv).

The other portion of the neoliberals are a mixture of nihilists and sociopaths.

There may be some overlap between the two categories I posited there.

 

[SpineyNorman]

i see the states role of protecting those who can't protect themselves too important.

If the state's role in protecting those who can't protect themselves is so important why would you want to remove such protections as welfare payments and free healthcare for those who cannot fend for themselves? It all seems a little inconsistent to be honest.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I think the neoliberals (those who believe the idea rather than just use it as a tool to make things go their way) see it as the best chance to make the most of human potential, but don't see it as a signposted road to any kind of utopia. As a political philosophy it's hardly alone in that respect. Even with Marxism you have the struggle, then a kind of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' future, then the real future that it is supposed to eventually lead to, so you get to stay in the 'dictatorship' waiting room as long as is deemed necessary by those who wield the power (depending on how it goes, obv).

The other portion of the neoliberals are a mixture of nihilists and sociopaths.

There may be some overlap between the two categories I posited there.

I'm interested in what those who are actually putting it into practice see as the future and how the actual future may differ from this. (I'm guessing that's what others are trying to figure out too) I think it's more the ones who use it as a tool than the free market fantasists that we ought to be looking at. I think on some level even many of the neoliberal pragmatists believe some of their own propaganda about freeing people and their productive capacities but I think that's probably more a case of justifying it to themselves.

I don't really know what that future will look like but I think the system has only been able to stay afloat because of the various bubbles that have been inflated and then burst - I see those bubbles as a symptom, a short term way of keeping the system moving and making a profit when there's not really anything to invest in in the real economy (I'm willing to be corrected on this - economics aren't my strong point - I know that consumer debt was necessary to keep it all going too but I'm not sure where that fits in). I think now, in addition to inflating more bubbles they are looking to introduce the profit motive to every previously non-commodified aspect of social life they can (or rather accelerate it - it's already been happening for some time) - I don't know what the Marxist term for that would be - it seems to me to be a kind of combination of primitive accumulation and increasing the rate of exploitation but I don't know if there's a better term for it. (Again, I'm ready to be shot down for this - I'm trying to learn more about this stuff)

What that actually means for the future I don't know - I wonder if they think they'll just keep pushing it as far as they can until sufficient people have had enough to be a threat, then they may think of changing tack. But what that means in terms of what things will actually look like in the future I have no idea and I'm not sure they do really.

I'm not sure you're right about likening them to Marxists in that they don't have a vision (unless I've misunderstood). It's debatable whether communism is ever really possible but at least it is a vision - it's an end point they are working towards. I don't think neoliberals have an end point in mind, other than one where as much of life as possible is about profit.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think if we look at what neo-liberalism has done in practice, a lot of is very different to what the rhetoric offered by the Chicago Boys might have suggested.

In order to forcibly introduce marketisation and monetisation in areas of society where they weren't present before, they've had to use the power of the state.

Not only to smash dissent, but to introduce and administer the infliction of markets and performance metrics etc.

Now that neo-liberalism has failed, its toxic corpse is so badly intertwined with the fabric of the state that the state itself is corrupted by it, has become a machine for telling lies for and facilitating the looting strategies of a privileged kleptocracy.

 

[phildwyer]

Now that neo-liberalism has failed

Failed at what? Surely at nothing that neo-liberals care about.

 

[TruXta]

Not only to smash dissent, but to introduce and administer the infliction of markets and performance metrics etc.

But that's what performance metric are for, normalising (in a statistical, hence managerial sense) behaviour, and then benchmarking according to that measure. Not that metrics or stats are inherently tools to crush dissent - simply that such has their use been framed within marketisation.

 

[TruXta]

Failed at what? Surely at nothing that neo-liberals care about.

Even many avowed neo-liberals acknowledge that it has failed to safeguard nature. That's an easy one for starters.

 

[phildwyer]

Has anyone actually directly answered the question yet?

There is no neoliberal vision of the future. It's essentially nihilist in its outlook.

Neo-liberalism is the bestowal of power upon capital. So it works to further the ends of capital, rather than those of humanity.

One interesting thing about this is the possibility that the interests of capital may or do diverge from those of capital's "owners."

 

[phildwyer]

Even many avowed neo-liberals acknowledge that it has failed to safeguard nature. That's an easy one for starters.

What does capital care for nature?

 

[8ball]

I'm not sure you're right about likening them to Marxists in that they don't have a vision (unless I've misunderstood). It's debatable whether communism is ever really possible but at least it is a vision - it's an end point they are working towards. I don't think neoliberals have an end point in mind, other than one where as much of life as possible is about profit.

I didn't mean to imply Marxists don't have a vision, just that there is plenty of scope there for an indefinite delay on delivering on any promises, and hence even a political movement that starts from the most utopian of philosophies can get away with a 'jam tomorrow, shit today' millenarian-type fudge. It was a kind of comment on the uselessness of utopias as anything more than a 'guiding star'.

Answering your actual question, I think you already have the answer - a few of the neoliberal 'movers and shakers' actually believe it to a degree, a few use it to kid themselves that there is some truly ethical dimension to what they are doing, and the rest (any who will ever accept a bailout, let's say) are using it in a purely cynical misanthropic way and don't actually give a shit what happens to anybody as a consequence.

 

[phildwyer]

Not that metrics or stats are inherently tools to crush dissent - simply that such has their use been framed within marketisation.

They are indeed tools to crush or prevent dissent, because they evaluate human activity in quantitative terms.

 

[SpineyNorman]

What does capital care for nature?

Interesting slant but is capital capable of "wanting" anything? We're talking about what the neoliberals envision for the future. Would most neoliberals (though cartainly not all) see the financial crisis as a failure? Or is it seen as a good thing that can provide cover for their project? Or maybe a combination of the two - they'd have preferred to avoid the instability but once it's happened will use it to their advantage.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Who knows what individuals would say. What certainly can be said is that a risky period has so far been negotiated and that everything is, so far, working out swimmingly. The accelerated process of transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that it has enabled in the UK is a good illustration of this.