the neoliberal vision of the future

[Kizmet]

In a way it does go beyond Onar. In so far as you can use him to try and answer the questions what is a neo-liberal, what do they want and what do they do?

 

[Kizmet]

He's not a neo liberal... he's a very naughty boy.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Look at it another way, if neo-liberalism didn't have its locus of power in the modern state, starting with Pinochet, then via Thatcher and Reagan through most of the developed world, it'd just be another crank economic/ethical ideology like Rand's Objectivism. A joke ...

The reason it's not a joke is that it was used as the rhetorical and to some degree philosophical basis for a revolution from above, removing the small elements of democratic control over capital that had been built up during the post-depression, post-WW2 consensus. It's an ideology which played a formative role in the restoration of class power lost to democratic forces, however feeble, during that period. So if we're taking it seriously, it's due to Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and their ilk, not internet warriors spouting Hayek.

 

[TruXta]

Look at it another way, if neo-liberalism didn't have its locus of power in the modern state, starting with Pinochet, then via Thatcher and Reagan through most of the developed world, it'd just be another crank economic/ethical ideology like Rand's Objectivism. A joke ...

The reason it's not a joke is that it was used as the rhetorical and to some degree philosophical basis for a revolution from above, removing the small elements of democratic control over capital that had been built up during the post-depression, post-WW2 consensus. It's an ideology which played a formative role in the restoration of class power lost to democratic forces, however feeble, during that period. So if we're taking it seriously, it's due to Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and their ilk, not internet warriors spouting Hayek.

I feel we're missing out a bit here on the role played by market actors (loosely defined) in spreading new governance models that directly advocated a marketisation of what used to be governmental duties and roles. So not so much led from the top ala Thatcher and Reagan as coming both from within and without the state.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep. Well put.

 

[TruXta]

Thanks lbj.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I feel we're missing out a bit here on the role played by market actors (loosely defined) in spreading new governance models that directly advocated a marketisation of what used to be governmental duties and roles. So not so much led from the top ala Thatcher and Reagan as coming both from within and without the state.

Yeah but to enable that kind of stuff, they had to take over the state.

 

[TruXta]

Yeah but to enable that kind of stuff, they had to take over the state.

Did they tho? You could argue for some deep regulatory and ideological capture, but IMO it takes two to tango.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Not that I'm particularly defending Onarchy... but I do think banning should be banned.

Well as I think Bernie said earlier, it's not about stifling free speech, it's about lessening the amount of shite the mods have to deal with.

 

[butchersapron]

Did they tho? You could argue for some deep regulatory and ideological capture, but IMO it takes two to tango.

Yes, but we're missing the role of the w/c here, the other real dancer - that's who the state and capital were reacting to, who pushed them into these sorts of changes. The state logic and the capital logic can appear as competing for a short period, but in the longer view tends to demonstrate that this competition is brotherly competition, the shaking out or developing of new forms of dealing with the w/c.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Did they tho? You could argue for some deep regulatory and ideological capture, but IMO it takes two to tango.

"enable"

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

I agree. It's utterly disgraceful that he hasn't been allowed to air his white supremacist views without opposition. But then again we are all fascists so what do you expect?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yes, but we're missing the role of the w/c here, the other real dancer - that's who the state and capital were reacting to, who pushed them into these sorts of changes. The state logic and the capital logic can appear as competing for a short period, but in the longer view tends to demonstrate that this competition is brotherly competition, the shaking out or developing of new forms of dealing with the w/c.

Yep, that's kind of what I was getting at when I was talking about taking e.g. state controlled financial institutions out of the sphere of democracy again. The w/c is the reason *why* they had democratic control, however feeble, to get rid of.

 

[TruXta]

Yes, but we're missing the role of the w/c here, the other real dancer - that's who the state and capital were reacting to, who pushed them into these sorts of changes. The state logic and the capital logic can appear as competing for a short period, but in the longer view tends to demonstrate that this competition is brotherly competition, the shaking out or developing of new forms of dealing with the w/c.

FFS, you know how hard three-body problems are! But yes, I see your point.

 

[fredfelt]

...

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.

..

That's interesting. Especially as neo-liberals are always going on about individual rights and personal freedom. I'm not quite how the logic works where an neo-liberal economic system translates to personal freedom. People all over the planet are having their lives torn apart by the neo-liberal world order if the like it or not. (if that's not too grand a term for it). The corporation seems to have little concern for individual rights.

Without security, stability, employment rights or even a fairly equitable society I'm also not sure what it means when all you are left with is personal freedom.

 

[TruXta]

"enable"

Bit of a weasel word that tho. I think you need to specify some mechanisms to get at what really happens.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That's interesting. Especially as neo-liberals are always going on about individual rights and personal freedom. I'm not quite how the logic works where an neo-liberal economic system translates to personal freedom. People all over the planet are having their lives torn apart by the neo-liberal world order if the like it or not. (if that's not too grand a term for it). The corporation seems to have little concern for individual rights.

Without security, stability, employment rights or even a fairly equitable society I'm also not sure what it means when all you are left with is personal freedom.

Do you even have personal freedom when your choices are a) be a wage-slave or b) be institutionally disciplined by the benefits system or c) turn to a life of crime and end up institutionally disciplined by the (soon to be privatized) prison system.

Of course, if you're really *good* at crime, then you won't get caught and the system will start to work in your favour. Social darwinism in action eh?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Bit of a weasel word that tho. I think you need to specify some mechanisms to get at what really happens.

I did, go read back.

 

[TruXta]

This?

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 while failing to effectively enforce tax laws on the rich. This actually helps the rich get richer, through downward pressure on wages, on corporation tax and on taxes aimed at the excessively wealthy, but does so in ways that contradict their rhetoric

 

[SpineyNorman]

Isn't neoliberalism better seen as a process than a model? That process being the introduction of market forces to things like schools, hospitals, the benefits system, etc. in order to increase the opportunities for capitalists to acrue more surplus value. And I'd say they've been forced into doing this, just as they've been forced into speculating on stocks etc. and inflating bubbles, by a crisis in profitablity in the "real" economy. I suppose the ideal end point would be a world where all human relationships are governed by the market.

 

[fredfelt]

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.

This piece touches on the differences between neo-liberalism and a market based / capitalist system. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/10/will-hutton-keynes-austerity-osborne

 

[fredfelt]

double post.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

TruXta. Seems like there's a disconnect here. Let's go back. What exactly is it that you want me to explain?

Happy to have a go. If it gets too technical for me, I'm sure there are others here who can help.

 

[rekil]

Onar had a cunning plan to get Iceland out of debt.

1. A non-Icelandic individual pays a one-time fee of $25.000+1% of the wealth he wants to have protected under Icelandic law. Similarly a non-icelandic corporation pays a one-time fee of 5% (minimum $500.000) in order to operate freely on Iceland.

2. In return the individual becomes a Charter Citizen of Iceland and the corporation becomes a Charter Corporation, which gives them FULL ECONOMIC FREEDOM. In practice this means:

- they pay ZERO taxes
- they may freely choose their means of trade (gold, dollars, chickens, you name ut.)
- they may perform any economic activity WITHOUT REGULATION provided that the activity is generally legal in Iceland. (E.g. narcotics may be illegal, but banking is legal and hence Charter Citizens may operate FREE BANKING)
- they have ZERO welfare rights
- all Charter Citizen/Corporation contracts are protected by Icelandic law

ZERO taxes and FULL economic freedom, not for all Icelandic people, but for these special Charter Citizens. It is not very complex at all to create a law that gives full economic freedom to Charter Citizens. If the Icelandic people want the same deal and want to make a similar system for themselves they are of course free to do so.

We're through the looning glass here people.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What do you do when someone with zero welfare rights falls over and needs your help? Do you leave them to die?

 

[oppgitt]

Yep. It is incredibly dishonest to interpret [van Pelt's] words the way these two are doing.

On rereading I have to agree with this -- though keep in mind it was I who posted it in the first place, not Onar. Sorry for posting such bullshit. I guess this is me signing off on a temporary insanity plea.

This thread gave me some new perspectives on Onar's writings, and for that I owe some of you thanks. I have a hard time understanding where the hostility towards Onar comes from, though. To be frank I find the atmosphere here pretty disgusting.

 

[Idris2002]

You find it disgusting? How do you think we feel?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You have a hard time understanding why people are hostile to someone who is promoting white supremacist ideas?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why not answer the question?

Because the question can be answered by your reading the thread.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I have a hard time understanding where the hostility towards Onar comes from, though.

I can help with that - it comes from the fact that he's a white supremacist, chauvinist, Pinochet apologist cunt who tries to draw a moral equivalence between Hitler and those who would have been his first victims were they alive at the time.