the neoliberal vision of the future
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
rekil
to menny cranks
Yeah I know, I do wonder if he's ever had a job though. And if he does have one does he avoid the canteen because it's 'socialism.'The way I look at it, you've had scholars such as Droz, Bracher and (although he's a dirty socialist!) Lukacs analyse National-Socialism (why the hyphen? Because that's how the Nazis themselves portrayed the name, not as two separate words, and I do like a bit of historical accuracy now and then) in the phenomenon's immediate aftermath and not find a thread of "real living socialism" in Nazism, merely an appropriation of some of the rhetoric of socialism, but perhaps Onar can reveal something that 3 or four generations of scholars of politics and history have missed.
I doubt it, though. All he has is a few rhetorical devices to stave off the evil day when he flees this board, and even they don't work too well when your audience is even remotely critical.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
It must be my impure Slav blood 
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I am quite good at asking blokes to do things for me...*scuttles off to mods forum with bribery biscuits*
Have you guys decided whether he is a neo-liberal yet?
_angel_
.
Do you have to have a certain threshold of posts before you can see that forum? Tbh there are prob all sorts of people perving on that thread.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Yes but some people are far far weirder and more disturbing than others.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
...how weird is someone who thinks me and JC3 are socialists?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It's always a tricky one though due to the inherent contradictions of that school of thought. By which I mean, neo-liberal rhetoric is all about individual freedom, but the actual practice turns out to be about the freedom of the rich to get richer at the expense of everybody else. (see e.g. Harvey: "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" for the detailed arguments)
So yeah, onarchy spouts some of the characteristic Hayek et. al. rhetoric, along with the stuff about negroes having smaller brains and so on, but is spouting the rhetoric, which we know conflicts with the practice, enough to make you an actual neo-liberal? Or can you only be one of those if you have actually used the power of the state to enrich yourself at the expense of your fellow citizens while spouting such rhetoric?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Why not read the thread and find out?
That was essentially my contention at the beginning of this thread. Actions generally speak louder than words. And I was un-convinced that neo-liberals even existed.
And then along comes this one who seems to fit the bill almost exactly. And yet even he doesn't seem to think he's one.
I am still un-convinced about this neo bollocks, but Onar is about the closest thing you can get and it's a shame, given the thread title, that few people are interested in his views of the future. I guess that's because it's easier to argue about the past where there's a touch more certainty.
I think it'd be a shame to ban someone given the sheer amount of opposition they have had. It means that they haven't really received a fair chance to air their views without the pressure of misrepresentarion and multiple arguments.
Not that I'm particularly defending Onarchy... but I do think banning should be banned.
And then along comes this one who seems to fit the bill almost exactly. And yet even he doesn't seem to think he's one.
I am still un-convinced about this neo bollocks, but Onar is about the closest thing you can get and it's a shame, given the thread title, that few people are interested in his views of the future. I guess that's because it's easier to argue about the past where there's a touch more certainty.
I think it'd be a shame to ban someone given the sheer amount of opposition they have had. It means that they haven't really received a fair chance to air their views without the pressure of misrepresentarion and multiple arguments.
Not that I'm particularly defending Onarchy... but I do think banning should be banned.
TruXta
tired
I think you need to specify that last bit some more. What does "using the power of the state to enrich yourself" mean in practice? Everyone who even implicitly uses the threat of litigation in case of breach of contract is "using the state".
Why not answer the question?
What about if you just thought about it?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well yes, there you go. Protection of property, bailing you out when things go wrong, ensuring unfair trading terms, plus of course they do actually need the state to provide education, health care, etc to their workers, while they themselves dodge the taxes to pay for those services. Sometimes, as in the recent crisis, it really is as simple and blatant as the state directly transferring wealth to the rich.
TruXta
tired
I wasn't really talking about the fat cats here. More like if you get a plumber in and try to dodge the bill. The plumber might then take you to a small claims court or whatever. Is this what neo-liberalism is about?
TruXta
tired
I do. Have you anything of substance here or are you just gonna snipe ineffectually from the sidelines?
Don't be a paranoid prick. I meant thought about litigation.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well, remember what I'm pointing at are the inherent contradictions between neo-liberal rhetoric and actions. So don't get too hung up on that particular form of words.
Here's a clearer example of what I'm talking about. Neoliberal rhetoric offers "market forces" as a kind of ethical foundation for human relationships, it talks a lot about "freedom" and neoliberals claim to seek the minimisation of the state.
In practice though, neoliberals in government actually have to extend the power of the state to force marketisation onto e.g. the health service or the school system. They extend the state again when they create entire new apparatuses for monitoring and coercing benefit claimants, although we see the state withering away where it's concerned with the effective enforcement of tax laws on the rich. This all actually helps the rich get richer, at others' expense, through downward pressure on wages, on corporation tax and on taxes aimed at the excessively wealthy, but does so in ways that fundamentally contradict their rhetoric. They extend rather than reduce the state. The only people whose freedom is enhanced are the richest in society. You can see that for example benefit claimants suffer increased state oppression in order to exert downward pressure on wages and taxes for the benefit of the rich.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No. Not as far as I'm concerned, at least. Neo-liberalism is a project by and for the fat cats.
TruXta
tired
My bad.
TruXta
tired
OK, but how does this differ from the standard left account of capitalism? Seems to me that if this is what neo-liberalism is about, then it's really only rhetoric.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well the point here, if you recall, was to answer the question 'have we decided if onar is a neo-liberal' by saying in effect, 'first you have to decide what a neo-liberal is, someone who just spouts the rhetoric or someone involved with the demonstrably different practice?'
So, in your view, only the rich can be neo-liberals?
TruXta
tired
Right, I thought it went beyond Onar. In that case, no, he's not a neo-lib. He's a fascist.
Similar threads
