the neoliberal vision of the future
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I blame the lizards and the illuminati. It's all their fault! 
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So who is doing the legislating you talk about?
I blame the lizards and the illuminati. It's all their fault!
Neo-liberals. Every last one of them.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Is tom a gaulist maybe
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Was he the chemtrails one?
Also don't forget bigfish and the "solar hypothesis" ...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It was all Marx's fault. I seeeeeeeeeeeee now. Them uppity Joos.
I blame Jesus.
I blame Jesus.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Phil you mean? I have no idea - but he's got some mad stuff about the separation of the state and capital.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
oops yes i meant him.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Have you looked at other countries which fully embraced the neo-liberal model (with the full backing of a strong state by the way - it's a fallacy that neo-liberal means small goverment) - take New Zealand and the UK. These formally socially democratic economies put their blind faith in neo-liberal policies. In both cases the state was bigger (in terms of government spending and taxation) after the reforms than before.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hang on, I've actually just read that drivel about the Jews. Anti-semitism started in the 19th century? WTF. Go and educate yourself before you start preaching your bullshit, please.
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
Marx invented anti-semitism- the crafty cryptobolshy-fascist 
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In the UK? Which reforms and when? Which social democracy?
Personally I find it far more useful to judge individual LAWS as fascist or not, because that both makes it easier for people to follow the argument and to agree. Remember that the defining characteristics of fascism is FORCED UNITY. Now if we apply that to an individual law, what does that mean? Well, it means that you make a law that dictates some sort of behavior on everyone. A perfect example of a fascist law is the law against homosexuality that existed before. This is forced sexual unity. Everyone MUST be heterosexual, even if you don't want to and even if you hurt no-one by being homosexual.
I think that everyone could agree that laws that force everyone to be heterosexual or force all women to wear Burqas or force everyone to be muslims are fascist. I have yet to run into anyone who doesn't immediately and instinctly recognize the fascist nature of such laws. Well, then it is just to start to evaluate one law after the other. Is the welfare state fascist? Well, yes. It forces everyone to go to public schools or use public health care. (It does so by forcing you to PAY for public schools and public health care through taxation, even if you don't want to, and you explicitly want to use your money on private alternatives.) It makes perfect sense that Mussolini and Hitler were huge fans and pioneers of the welfare state because the only way to implement it is by fascist laws.
Now it becomes apparent that most political systems (except laissez-faire) are fascist to some degree, but is there a way to distinguish between stalinism and mild forms of fascism? Yes, it is possible to divide the political systems into whether they are PRIMARILY fascist or PRIMARILY liberal, and it also makes sense to judge whether a political system is centrist, i.e. liberal fascism.
If we strip away all the gory details what we erronously call democracy (people's rule) but which should have been called majority fascism is a liberal fascist political system. Majority rule allows exactly half of the population (the majority) to rule their own lives and live in peace. These live in a democracy. The other half (the minority) on the other hand live in a fascist society, where their lives are dictated by the majority. So it is indeed correct to call modern democracy liberal fascism.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ah, I see what you've done now. You define 'fascist' to mean 'collective'. Certain decisions are taken at the collective rather than the individual level. Twas always thus in human societies. That's what a society is. We are highly social animals that cannot survive without the help of others – so we have to negotiate a deal with them: put in language you might understand, rights come with obligations. You cannot have any meaningful rights unless you are prepared to give something back to the collective. And no, you can't just opt out, but that doesn't mean that you are being forced in a 'fascist' way. It merely means that you are but one of many in the decision-making process.
You need to grow up, basically. Your argument is at the level of a six-year-old having a tantrum because they have to go to bed.
You need to grow up, basically. Your argument is at the level of a six-year-old having a tantrum because they have to go to bed.
Nooo, anti-semitism didn't START in the 19th century, but it got a major upswing. Jews in germany were almost completely integrated in society in the beginning of the 19th century. Then came the industrial revolution to Germany and the rise of Jews to wealth. (Jews essentially created the modern industrial Germany) With their rise to power the antisemitism was reignited.
When that is said, it is also worth noting that Jews have been money lenders for a long time, even dating back to Medina. Anyone who has tried to lend out money to friends who need money knows how easily a relationship can turn sour when time has come to pay. Many a time the borrower ends up trying to paint the lender as the bad guy somehow, to save his own self-image and to justify that he is not paying back what he owes. I have no problems seeing this as a major root to anti-semitism.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I think the root of anti-semitism is a bit more complicated than being pissed off about somebody wanting a loan repayed.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
If everything is fascist, then why not drop the word 'fascism'? I know you think it's the ultimate rhetorical bomb, but it loses its value if overused. For example you'll get people like me pointing out that the things you describe as fascism predate fascism by over a hundred years.
And what is 'lassez-faire' btw? Is it a characteristic of some laws, or a system that has been implemented, or a way of being or what?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
He's only mentioned the ashkenazi as being smart, btw. Maybe the sephardim are a bit dim.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
The state of course. My point being that when legislation is passed which gives much greater control to global corporations a sovereign state has less power to control their own destiny. Neo-liberalism does not imply or lead to a democratic government.
Where corporations are free to operate globally to remain competitive they need to reduce costs. To achieve a low cost base a corporation moves production to where they can get cost advantages. These cost advantages are to be found where they are taxed less, have little protection for labour (or 'flexible labour markets' as the CBI puts it), or few environmental controls (or 'cutting red tape'). This leads to a race to the bottom. With this race to the bottom it's very hard for a sovereign state in a global de-related economy to offer favourable conditions for corporations - while still offering job stability, envorinmental protection, control over it's own resources, and even a stable economy.
This is why I still maintain that neo-liberalism is in direct conflict with democratic sovereign states - even though the sovereign states put the legislation in place for the neo-liberal project.
What I want to know is if this state of affairs is reversible.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You seem to be arguing that the state simultaneously imposes and guarantees neo-liberalism whilst being our only defence against it. And you're tying that defence to democracy and that democracy to the sovereign state - the one that imposes and guarantees neo-liberalism.
The state is not something neutral, a tool that you can just put your hands on and use as you wish. It developed out of and is a expression of the contradictions that (total/collective) capital cannot overcome on the political level - it exists for capital full stop. Or it does now anyway.
The modern state is democratic in its ideological mythology and the modern state is neo-liberal in its very foundations. (How may states aren't neo-liberal? Aren't democratic? How many new ones?)
As I said, it doesn't matter. As for many socialists and communists, the actual results can always be disowned as not the genuine article.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Thatcher. Deregulation of the labour market and putting legal limits on the powers of trade unions. Deregulation of banking and 'the big bang', selling off council houses, selling of state controlled firms to the private sector, economic policy focusing on money supply and to reduce inflation thanks to Milton Friedman being a buddy of hers. I'm sure you know this though, why do you ask?
No they're not, however objectionable they may be. There are all sorts of authoritarianism which have nothing to do with fascism.
Forget fascism; it's making you look like a right mental case.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Thatcher was a social democrat? Her govt was formal social democracy? Total public spending was down (leaving aside the changes in the internal compostion of that spending) after her time in power.
I see from skimming this thread that the boards have picked up another minor infection.
There are no laissez-faire political systems (or economic ones). Never have been and hopefully never will be. And if there will be, it's absolutely guaranteed to be an unmitigated disaster. That's why even those political currents attracted to it actually reject most of its tenets in practice; they know.
Similar threads
