Printable View
I'm assuming that, even if whole industries move out of the UK, citing supply chain problems, you'll still dismiss it as Chicken Little. NB. the Japanese ambassador has already warned that the Japanese car makers won't be looking kindly on trade barriers, ie. the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You know, it strikes me all of a sudden that Pannonian's whole screed about the economics of Brexit that past 2 years exemplifies the futility and perversity of conservatism as a philosophy.
An argument from conservatism will always fail against Brexiteers.
And no Pan, I'm not coming out in favor of Brexit. Think about what I'm saying here.
That's funny Monty, because most of the Brexiteers could be described as conservatives.
Also, Germans often seem to vote in favor of moving on without any changes, see 16 years of Merkel. :sweatdrop:
And with Furunculus's dismissal of business concerns as Chicken Little, the business representatives (ie. formal representatives, chambers of commerce or their equivalents) of the US, Canada, India and Japan have warned the UK government to attend to their concerns or face the exodus of their countries' business, amounting to 100 billion or so.
you'll have to expand on that. I see nothing perverse or futile in the following: "the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly changing organic humane traditionalism."Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Me? No. Nations thrive through change, I'm a liberal conservative (or a Conservative Liberal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
In reality, what I consider myself to be is a Classical Liberal, not a Conservative.
That's rich coming from someone whose political tradition sees business through the prism of an ugly force that must be contained, whose continued existance is justified only by the possibility that they can be bled to feed needs of society. In your quest to constrain business with (high) tax and (excessive) regulation by my calculation you've cost the economy 0.5% GDP growth, compound over the last twenty years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Wanting a return to classical times would make you a reactionary then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/li...r_progressive/
<I don't want to take the time to write this in a less tendentious register>
Trying to defend the EU, or criticize leaving it, through a liberal economic lens is inherently conservative, because it relies only on the existence of the status quo and its superficial justifications for its strength. An argument literally that there is virtue in the very maintenance of the existing order will be relatively unconvincing to people who are dissatisfied with the existing order - most people by now. That's one hand.
Conservatism on paper has genuinely been a weak and largely-indefensible philosophy. Daddy Conservative of the United States William Buckley's maxim was "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop", but that's clearly stupid and vacuous on its own terms, unless you transubstantiate "history" for the project of "modernity". In the end it's a flimsy camouflage for reifying an aristocratic social order; this, not any permutation of sober reflection or opposition to haste or 'caution', is what characterizes Conservative instinct. (The Dulles brothers were more honest than most in this regard.)
In other words, it's a kind of double-speak for reaction.
There's the rub. A leftist defending an inadequate system with the token language of the Right is like a sheep discoursing to the wolf about what shepherds believe constitutes proper flock management. The wolf doesn't really care about such niceties, it just wants to eat the sheep. It's like making the case to Tory-supporting upper-manager that the NHS is a good idea because healthy citizens are productive citizens. Healthy citizens are good regardless of their economic capacity! You get what I'm saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Rather than providing an affirmative justification for the power of EU membership to accomplish new and great things, Pannonian focuses almost entirely on the jeopardy of Brexit for the British way of life. Appeal toward jeopardy is a typical conservative appeal. Ideologically-committed Brexiteers aren't fazed by economic indicators because that's never been the object of their attention. That's offering evidence in a debate they aren't having with you. Their ideals for Brexit involve reshaping the national, regional, and global order in a particular way. No one cares about Brexit's potential effects on exports as % of GDP one way or another, except bureaucrats, actuaries, and academics.
Time to stop talking about desiring a tomorrow that looks like today Pannonian, no one has that luxury anymore except billionaires. You can't out-conservative Conservatives.
That is a very reductive view, and seems of marginal relevance in labelling someone who has a particular value construct, whatever that might be.
Are you a reactionary in your attempt to wind. Back the evils of nineties/noughties neoliberalism?
Maybe if I wanted to return to a mid-century ideal - but I don't. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The bottom line with my post above is that 'Brexit will be painful' is an irrelevant argument to most supporters of Brexit, whether they be casually dissatisfied, scapegoating, single-issue, or ideologically-motivated. I further argued that this is the case because policy jeopardy is basically a conservative concept, and conservative concepts are for why other people can't or shouldn't do things.
I do agree with you on two counts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The ineffectual result of trying to co-opt these Rguments from the left, if only because lack of familiarity causes one to make assumption s on the terms of the debate. Mistakes that might not be made from the familiarity of home ground.
That your critiques is valid caricature for how conservatism is often practiced, but that bears little relevance to the philosophy as espoused by hogg. It is as useful as me castigating pannonian for being a communist.
Roger Scruton published yet another book on this just now. But he opposes individualistic 'market liberalism' IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The question is, is this abstraction bent towards productive or appreciable results? Is it more salutary or meaningful than a principle of "Be best" or "Everything is always awesome"?Quote:
"the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly changing organic humane traditionalism."
And there are many strands within (British) conservative tradition, he may not like one of them. But you haven't evidenced the claim that; "Conservatism on paper has genuinely been a weak and largely-indefensible philosophy."Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What benchmarks are you going to measure Conservatism against? And will you hold other political philosophies to the same standard? Social Democracy, just one more more failed five-year-plan away from tyranny and the gulags!
Losing the Cayman islands would absolutily be a pain for them
Britain has been on a strand of social democracy since the democratic reforms of the second half of C19, and the social reforms of the early C20. Look up Herbert Asquith, David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill for examples of the second lot. And social reform has been a thing even before them; see Charles Dickens, and even The Conservative (he who renamed the party), Benjamin Disraeli, who coined the term One Nation Conservative (as opposed to the Two Nations of Rich and Poor). While the Reformist Liberals like Asquith et al, not to mention the later Labour party, talked about state obligations, Disraeli talked about social obligations. But both talked about obligations. And this is where they differ from neo-Thatcherites, who feel no obligations whatsoever. Thatcher herself would probably be horrified by her ostensible followers, especially wrt what they're doing about Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
a fine and noble history, did you miss the absurdist point i was making?
Comparing social democracy with Communism? And my point is that Communism is as alien to mainstream British political thought as your ultra free marketeerism is. You were arguing on the previous page that social democracy is somehow a European tradition and not British. You're trying to make the same argument again, except by pretending to some kind of wit by reductio ad absurdum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And an American diplomat's analysis of Brexit.
Of course I would maintain that most good things in this world have come from/under modern social democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Anyway, think of it like this: in any given situation, what kind of principled prescription or guidance can the conservatism you outlined offer that isn't just, total discretion and whim? On paper, does conservatism preclude even communism?
As an example of philosophies with principles, take "progressivism". There are several ways to interpret it, but one is tautological and really almost impossible to contest regardless of what one thinks of the term itself, "progress".
There have been many aphorisms penned on the subject of knowledge and learning (in the humanistic sense). One such from A. E. Housman, a dude probably relatively well-known among you:
Quote:
Other desires become the occasion of pain through dearth of the material to gratify them, but not the desire of knowledge: the sum of things to be known is inexhaustible, and however long we read we shall never come to the end of our story-book. So long as the mind of man is what it is, it will continue to exult in advancing on the unknown throughout the infinite field of the universe; and the tree of knowledge will remain for ever, as it was in the beginning, a tree to be desired to make one wise.
What's the principle vis-a-vis "progress" then? Just as there's always something else to be learned or discovered, there's always something that needs doing. From there it can branch any number of ways. A eugenicist says we should pare down and mold the species into a vision of a master race. A posthumanist says we should acknowledge the death of Man, the death of God, and the death of Progress all together as a logical end-point - giving way to something new and alien. A socialist says the shuffle toward equality must be continually reaffirmed.
What does a logically-consistent conservative (at least one attempting to be so) say about that? That all possible ideas, or all ideas worth having and developing, were discovered in the Greco-Roman era and/or codified into the Bible. Extreme, parochial, laughable? Sure. But "palaeo"-conservatism has long been one of the most coherent and influential strands.
What's in a word, people who like to call themselve progressive will defend a certain backward ultra-orthodox religion whenever they can, and don't understand it doesn't makes them progressive. If they didn't do that I would be one of them.
The left-wing types you are describing are more in opposition to certain practices by certain western countries as they are not becoming of a nation of reported higher-moral standing than defend certain backward practices. Some individuals end up being involved with the wrong individuals due to the mistaken view of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as they are both opposing an action for two very different reasons. The left-wing type may feel sympathy for someone with more extreme views as their homes were just bombed in actions they deem illegal and brutal by the actions of the reported higher moral-standing country but it turns out that person who got bombed isn't exactly the most moral-standing themselves and express hatred to that other country and its people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Those types who are actively involved typically involve the more extreme narratives than "progressive" as well.
The left-wing types you are describing are more in opposition to certain practices by certain western countries as they are not becoming of a nation of reported higher-moral standing than defend certain backward practices.
Do you honostly think that? I don't even know where to start. I won't dislike someone for thinking differently about things, but I absolutily dispise hypocrites, for people who don't even understand that they are hypocrites I have zero respect. I am a leftie at heart really, I am a total sucker for human rights no matter what kind of human somenone is, feel a bit alone
What if the "Stepford Wives" or any of your other designees accommodate both concerns: Evangelize left and liberal ideas (to Muslim immigrants and to everyone) and defend them as people (and not as 'goat herders fresh off the wrong side of the mountain') from the hypocrisies and depredations of the 'homegrown' far-right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What do you assume I think, and why do you, political correctness is nothing more than social brain-damageQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Given my exposure to people, including those you are most likely referencing then yes I do. I know lefties who despise Israel for example for the treatment of Palestinians. They see Israel as the aggressor and that they should know better, especially with allies such as the USA. As such, they protest the ill-treatment of Palestinians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Palestinians are typically Muslim and don't share many values with lefties (such as acceptance of homosexuality, etc), you describe these as "backwards ultra-orthodox". Because you now see Lefties denouncing the actions of Israel, you see these people 'protecting' the Palestinians and their "backwards ultra-orthodox" values.
Now you equate the left with defending Islam, rather than the left defending the ill-treatment of fellow humans (regardless of faith).
The terms "left" and "right" are so general that they cease to be helpful. At least one more axis - if not more - should be used.
~:smoking:
Kindly allow me, what makes the Palestinians so special, aren't people just a bit uncomortable with them being abolutily hopeless, there is nothing they won't screw up, a few ten years ago they massacred eachother, I guess you didn't hear of that a friend of mine can tell you what he saw. yeah I know people from there. But why really, Israel is doing pretty well why the fixation, what I personally think is that people hate how it managed to be succesfull and everything there is done to help the Palestinians is never anything more than a excercise in futility. That conflicts with how some people think about equality of cultures and I think that is where the fixatiion comes from. I might be wrong about that, but I could also be absolutily right about some having an identity-problem, simply being wrong with Israel as an ideoligical proxy-war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Isn't the real question why it's brought up
What do you think of the BMA's statement on Brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Permanent residence for EU doctors and medical researchers currently in the UK - sounds great - we keep the cream. I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
A flexible immigration system which supports UK health and medical research - sure, more the merrier. Highly qualified talent is wanted in almost any amounts.
Mutual recognition of professional qualifications and measures which protect patient safety - what the hell does that mean? Perhaps we could have some tests that they can, y'know, speak fluent English at a level required to practice medicine? Or do we have more that can't communicate "coma" and instead use "asleep"? I'm fed up with BMEs whining that more get referred to the GMC and this has to be racism without any attempt to review the data and even bother to see what they were referred for. Perhaps it is but the worst doctors I've ever worked with were all from abroad since their training is different. And in most cases I mean worse. And their english is worse than the natives. And it pisses me off when this ends up killing people.
Ongoing access to EU research programmes and research funding - and here the self interest of the BMA shows itself. Why not ask for access to the funding in the USA / Japan / China whilst we're at it?
Consideration of the unique impact Brexit may have on Northern Ireland’s health service - Northern Ireland needs to get on its Big Boy pants - and ideally reunite with Ireland. Goodbye. Good riddance. Does this statement mean that further subsidies are required, or that no sane doctor would work over in that hole?
~:smoking:
No, i was pointing out the opposite, that it would be absurd to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Just as it would be absurd to consign the whole of conservative thought and achievement to the bin labelled "reactionary".
I don't understand what you're trying to convey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Maybe they don't hold such a uniquely negative view of Palestinians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What you see as fixation is to some extent selection bias. People may be involved in or care about multiple causes, but in a moment inevitably you only perceive them in that moment of engaging with Palestinian rights.
How much do they care then and most of all why. Palestinian authorities aren't exactly very secretive about what they want.
And another leading Brexiteer advising UK businesses to leave the UK for the EU. Add Ashcroft to a list of hypocrites including Redwood, Farage and Rees Mogg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
On these notes: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2...ot-speak-name/Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You're really fitting the description. :laugh4:Quote:
Reactions against the use of the term neoliberalism have usually taken one of two forms: first, that “neoliberalism” is nothing more than a fevered delusion or a mirage perhaps shared with a few other addled persons, and thus best ignored; and second, that if such a thing does indeed exist, it is far too uneven and inconsistent to count as a serious analytical category.
[...]
The elusiveness of neoliberalism, however, ultimately stems from denials that neoliberals themselves have made about their efforts. While we can fairly well identify the roster of who should be acknowledged as a part of the movement, at least from its beginnings in the 1930s until the recent past, we are confronted with the fact that, in public, they themselves roundly deny the existence of any such well-defined thought collective, and stridently resist the label of neoliberalism.
[...]
The tendency to deny the existence of neoliberalism raises four questions that I will address here: Why do people think the “neoliberal” label is so very awful? Is it possible to pin down what neoliberalism signifies, and how you can tell a neoliberal when you encounter one?
I recommend reading the entire article, the page told me I can read 3 per month for free.
I'm not through it myself yet, I'm just impatient about posting here. :sweatdrop:
(PS: I know you said I may have misrepresented what you said earlier, so perhaps I'm just pulling your leg a little with the description above, no offense intended)
We shall see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I agree, it's a very interesting article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
No problem, all good fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
To start, i'll quote the sentences that follow your first quote:
"To be fair, mobilization of the term “neoliberalism” has grown uncomfortably sloppy among a subset of those on the left. Broadsides have equated it to laissez-faire economics, market fundamentalism, libertarianism, globalization, biopolitics, financialization, and many other things."
Indeed!
"Neoliberals should not be disparaged as “market fundamentalists,” for they believe that human beings must be transformed in order to establish their ideal society."
I do not hold this belief
"Gramsci understood this: “Moreover, laissez-faire liberalism, too, must be introduced by law, through the intervention of political power: it is an act of will, not the spontaneous, automatic expression of economic facts.”6 From the 1940s onward, the distinguishing characteristic of neoliberal doctrines and practice is that they embrace this prospect of repurposing the strong state to impose their vision of a society properly open to the dominance of the market as they conceive it"
I'm with Gramsci, and I do not believe what is described is desirable, because I am a Classical Liberal.
"Hayek stipulates, only men of substantial property over age forty-five would be eligible to vote or be elected; no political parties would be allowed; and each member would stand for a hefty fifteen-year term.8 This illustrates the larger neoliberal predisposition to be very leery of democracy, and thus to stymie public participation through the concentration of political power in fewer hands."
Hmmm, sounds like the same problem state-fundamentalists have, just from the other direction.
I do not believe what is described is desirable, because I am a Classical Liberal.
"In a nutshell, classical liberalism imagined a night watchman state that would set the boundaries for the natural growth of the market, like a shepherd tending his flock. Markets were born, not made. The principles of good governance and liberty would be dictated by natural rights of individual humans, or perhaps by the prudent accretion of tradition. People needed to be nurtured first to find themselves, in order to act as legitimate citizens in liberal society. Society would be protected from the disruptive character of the market by something like John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle”: colloquially, the freedom of my fist stops at the freedom of your face. The neoliberals were having none of that, and explicitly said so."
Yes! Sounds sensible. Seems like neo-libs don't like it tho... :(
"Their rallying cry was to remove the foundation of liberty from natural rights or tradition, and reposition it upon an entirely novel theory concerning what a market was, or should be."
Hold on there! I likes my natural rights, m'kay?
(1) “Free” people do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through political organizing.
(2) “The Gov't” is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible—more efficient than any market or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated by the Gov't.
(3) Collectivised society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of humankind.
(4) The political goal of socialists is not to destroy the markets, but to take control of it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the Gov't-friendly culture.
(5) There is no contradiction between public/politics/citizen and private/market/entrepreneur-consumer—because the former does and should eclipse the former.
(6) The most important virtue—more important than justice, or anything else—is collective repsonsibility, defined “positively” as “freedom through heirarchy,” and most importantly, defined as the freedom to acquiesce to the imperatives of the greater good.
(7) Revolution has a natural right to flow freely across national boundaries.
(8) Inequality—of resources, income, wealth, and even political rights—is a bad thing; it prompts revolution, because people envy the rich and emulate them; people who complain about inequality are our footsoldiers, who need to get hip to the way things work nowadays.
(9) Gov't can do no wrong—by definition. Socialised provision will take care of all problems, including any tendency to monopoly.
(10) The Gov't, engineered and promoted by Socialist experts, can always provide solutions to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place: there’s always “an app for that.”
(11) There is no difference between is and should be: “socialist" societies both should be (normatively) and are (positively) the most efficient Gov't system, and the most just way of doing politics, and the most empirically true description of human behavior, and the most ethical and moral way to live—which in turn explains, and justifies, why their versions of “free” societies should be and, as Socialists build more and more power, increasingly are universal."
Yeah, having none of that. I may have paraphrased a little, but you take my point?
"The purpose of the MPS was to create a special space where people of like-minded political ideals could gather together to debate the outlines of a future movement diverging from classical liberalism, without having to suffer the indignities of ridicule for their often blue-sky proposals."
Hmmm, sounds a lot like the various left wing societies/groups that advocate their platform from within the institutions.
A bit like Common Purpose perhaps?
https://www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose
You replaced "neoliberalism" with socialism and "market" with government seemingly to take the piss; the conversion is almost entirely inconsistent with the ideals of socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
i feel it is entirely adequate for its intended purpose: to draw a contrast between the individual focus of liberalism vs the statist focus of neoliberalism (by twisting the quoted words to show the closer similarilty of neoliberalism to lefty statism).
That was after all one of the primary aims of the linked article: to tease out what neoliberalism actually is, by seeing past the lazy caricatures of it as classical liberalism.
I thought the article did that rather well, my thanks to Husar.
The greatest contrast between neoliberalism as practiced by its theorists, and current states as they stand, is the urge to constantly cut state spending on everything except defence. Current states are not classically liberal that neoliberals will suddenly appear and dispense state funding to. Current states are further towards the social democratic spectrum, and in relation to this, neoliberals can see no action but to cut, cut, cut. Considering the demonisation of neoliberals, your preferred classical liberalism is even more alien to modern society than neoliberalism. Your starting point isn't a non-society that you can build on from scratch; your starting point is society as it now is. Do you have a democratic mandate for burning it all down so you can start anew?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
But there's an even better way to discern focus: whose table set will you sit at?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
It's nice to have theoretical disagreements, but how much do policy prescriptions differ?
Perhaps, but they're not any more of a problem to me than the frothing lunatics on the corbynite left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
That's an interesting view. That I don't share.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Maybe you believe that because your view of society is homogenous, where mine is heterogenous.
Yes, it's about two years old now. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Neither the lunatics of the corbinite left, nor too the lunatics of the neoliberal right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Not "believing that human beings must be transformed in order to establish their ideal society", seems to be a good start. You know, because i'm a negative liberty classical liberal, and my natural response to social engineering from government is two fingers!
Let's start with the proposition that if one doesn't oppose neoliberal policies, then one is a neoliberal at last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Next, what are (some) classical-liberal policies? What are (some) neoliberal policies? What have they been?
Is there any daylight between the two?
No. Let's start with the proposition that if one doesn't oppose socialist policies, then one is a socialist at last. Sounds equally manichean to me, how about you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You're all fighting a battle I simply don't care about. I'm enjoying the splendour of debating the merits of the eu, yet I fear I will end up being sucked into arcane doctrinal disputes over whether ordoliberalism is a form of neoliberlaism or not.
Y-yes? If there is no socialist policy you disagree with, or you disagree on the basis of favoring another socialist policy, it would be quite fair to call you a socialist. If it walks like a duck...
It's all fun and games until it's time to follow the logical consequences? It's not about doctrine but empirical object.
Still not sure why we are getting our knickers in a twist over neoliberals. Yes, it can be taken to daft extremes. I have much the same opinion of socialism. So what, why does it matter so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And I'm fine with that, we can have interesting debates about political philosophies and states of mind, all day long. But in this case it should be made relevant to the matter in hand. Why do I care about the 'perils' of neoliberalism in the context of brexit and/or the rump-EU?
----------------------------------------
Will the weight of right-wing EU governance lean 'dangerously' in the direction of German ordoliberalism without Britain to constrain it?
Will Britain fall prey to the evils of neoliberal maniacs without the 'guiding-hand' of responsible european social-democracy to protect it?
Tell me why it matters...
You are aware though, that the left and statism aren't all the same either, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You seem very happy about not being a neoliberal and then you appear to lump the entire left into one basket.
I may be a leftist, but I'm not a big fan of Corbyn or the Marxist-Leninist party. I also don't want a USSR or GDR back, I'm not a fan of PETA or think all animals should have the same rights as humans even though I think unnecessary abuse of animals should be illegal...
And yes, I'm a socialist, because I believe that I live in a society, where social interactions happen, so being social towards one another is perhaps not the worst idea in the world. A society consists foremost of humans, not markets, goods, jobs or money. That's my starting point, you know. In fact I would also consider myself quite humanist... :shrug:
Why do you not care? Because neoliberals enact and propose policies you like all the time? Where then is the practical difference between you and a neoliberal? That you will complain once it is too late and they replace democracy with something "more efficient"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Sure, but is that so very different from shouting "NEOLIBERAL" at anything vaguely right-wing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I refer you to the article:
"To be fair, mobilization of the term “neoliberalism” has grown uncomfortably sloppy among a subset of those on the left. Broadsides have equated it to laissez-faire economics, market fundamentalism, libertarianism, globalization, biopolitics, financialization, and many other things."
That's fine. I take no issue with that. I take no issue with being pro-EU in the sense of actively having a EUropean political identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I just don't share it.
You've just gone to great lenghts to:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
a) post an article that meticulously differentiates neoliberlism
b) demonstrate how you are one particularly beuatiful variety of lefty, quite distinct from the rest
And then you come along and tell me that i'm basically indistinguishable from a neoliberal.
How many sides do you want to play against the centre.
Again, I refer you to your article:
"In a nutshell, classical liberalism imagined a night watchman state that would set the boundaries for the natural growth of the market, like a shepherd tending his flock. Markets were born, not made. The principles of good governance and liberty would be dictated by natural rights of individual humans, or perhaps by the prudent accretion of tradition. People needed to be nurtured first to find themselves, in order to act as legitimate citizens in liberal society. Society would be protected from the disruptive character of the market by something like John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle”: colloquially, the freedom of my fist stops at the freedom of your face. The neoliberals were having none of that, and explicitly said so... Their rallying cry was to remove the foundation of liberty from natural rights or tradition, and reposition it upon an entirely novel theory concerning what a market was, or should be."
I too am a beautiful distinct little creature, quite different from the boogy-bears described above.
I think I went to some lengths above to demonstrate it in quotes, did you read it?
You can't lump in groups that disagree on policy. Corbin and Blair are both Left, in a manner of speaking. On the other hand, we still have the question unanswered of how you differentiate yourself from a neoliberal concretely? Or more broadly, have classical liberals avoided being subsumed by neoliberalism in our time?
I can't tell you why it matters to you, because it doesn't, right? Regardless of what happens, so long as there is a liberal market in services and a maintenance of the interventionist armed forces, you will enjoy the splendor of Brexit. The details aren't important, as you said, best left to the civil service and elected officials, within the desired contours.
How could it matter to other than whom see a grim future, which you don't?
Now you're being very, very wrong on two fronts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
1. If I made the same mistake you did, it wouldn't excuse yours, especially if you made yours after pointing out mine.
2. I wasn't even wrong when I shouted neoliberalism when you quoted an IEA study. Maybe you didn't read the entire article, but it's actually in there:
The IEA is in fact a neoliberal organization that was formed with help of the MPS, the mother of all neoliberal organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
So you did in fact quote a neoliberal organization and now you claim I was crying wolf?
No, you misconstrue my point. I asked how I am supposed to distinguish your classical liberalism from neoliberalism when you say you disagree in theory, but in practice you seem to support every neoliberal proposal that comes up here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
What good is the theoretical difference when you quack like a neoliberal, walk like a neoliberal and look like a neoliberal in practice? ;)
I come to the view that if you do good, people will see it and respond accordingly. As such, practice what you preach and people will go with what looks good.
I am of an ideology that believes that by working together and helping eachother, we all benefit. I have found it easier by saying I am a "socialist" in explaining this, but it is not entirely accurate. I don't think it is a purely socialist thing, though I do believe it is a social thing.
I am going to drop this video though, as I think it makes a point better than I do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ
Monte and Husar are still getting hot and sweaty about neoliberals, not sure where this thread is usefully going now...
One version of the above is what might be called classical Confucianism, the tenet that the rulers should lead the way by example and deed, a belief that set Confucius at odds with just about every ruler he served. The hypocrisy of the leading Brexiteers, combined with the capacity of their followers to condone such hypocrisy, would make him spin in his grave and lose faith in the capacity of humanity for good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Nooo, not neoliberals, "classical" liberals. I must be being unclear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You didn't want to confront the collapsing distinction, but it plainly affects this thread and beyond. Put more provocatively, do "classical liberals" exist, and if so, who/where are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
On the economic side. To my knowledge, people who have claimed to be classical liberals in the recent past usually do so with regard to social issues in opposition to the "SJW" left.
Forgive me if I point out that that would appear to be you alone, with Husar and Pannonian far more concerned about neoliberals.
We've just had a very detailed article from Husar asking this very question. I have gone to some trouble to pick out interesting extracts.
Why don't [you] sift through the article - or find an alternative source - you do seem terribly interested after all.
How does your quote differ from neoliberalism in practice? I've explained how I differ from nanny statism in my interpretation of socialism, how it works in practice, etc. So I've differentiated my view of socialism as it should be practiced and can be practiced from the bogeyman you often cite. Can you do likewise for your classical liberalism and neoliberalism? Because the only practical consequence that you've been consistent on is cutting back the state barring defence, and for me these are two of the main tenets of neoliberalism. The main consequence of neoliberalism has been the rise of oligarchs in the wake of disaster capitalism, and you seem to be ok with this too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Well, believing in natural rights, and rejecting the idea that gov't should be a tool to transform the people to meet the needs of the neoliberal market, seem to be pretty meaty practical differences.
Not allowing the state to grow in power and responsibility to the point where individual liberty is a residual memory isn't a defining characteristic of neoliberalism, it is a mindset that is generic a cross conservatism and classical liberalism for hundreds of years.
viewing the provision of internal and external security as the primary role of the state is hardly unique neoliberal doctrine either, nor to is preventing the rise of the welfare state from entirely crowding it out as a budget priority.
Again, in the context of brexit and the rump-eu; why the myopic fixation on neoliberalism?
And how does your classical liberalism, in relation to our current society, differ in practice from neoliberalism? In practice, you both want to cut back as far as you can get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Sorry, but determining that government had grown beyond public expectations in the Labour years, and that it should be retrenched back to public tolerance for taxation, cannot be considered a signature neoliberal view.
P. S. Why do we care so much about neoliberals?
Let me see:
- Furunculus posts two articles from two different neoliberal think tanks in support of Brexit
- Husar points that out
- Furunculus treats Husar like a conspiracy theorist
- Husar tries to engage more with the content and talk about the practical consequences
- Furunculus ignores the practical consequences and refers to theoretical ideology (classical liberalism) proving him right
- longer pause
- Husar posts article about neoliberalism
- Furunculus finally admits its not a conspiracy theory but that he is not part of it
- People ask Furunculus what exactly differentiates him then, which is actually on topic since he only cited neoliberal sources in support of his arguments while also arguing that he has nothing to do with neoliberal ideas
- Furunculus claims other people are obsessed with neoliberalism while he is the one bringing all the neoliberal think tanks to the discussion:
No, seriously, stop, you're not making much sense here. Get me some classical liberal think tanks or whatever to support your ideas and arguments and I will immediately stop about neoliberalism. But as long as you bring neoliberal propaganda to the table you can't complain that I want to discuss neoliberal propaganda...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
See above, plus I have also quoted the article to show how you take your "evidence" from neoliberal sources. Again, it wasn't me who brought the IEA into the discussion. Maybe choose your sources more wisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
This transformation is already going on and you appear to support most of the policies that facilitate that transformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I assume you won't acknowledge it though unless the government installs people in huge metal machines that directly alter their brain waves. See the article for example:
Why would you say this is not going on? One of the biggest tools to make people want what the market offers is advertising. Another is the tendency towards quasi-monopolies (and letting them be) and brands, where people mostly stop having or making a choice. And sometimes the choice is imaginary because the same corporation is making it. Most people in the West are too busy consuming what the market offers to think about alternatives they might really want.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
And all areas of life becoming more market-like is also becoming more and more true. In many areas it is done by removing possession from the consumer. The consumer then becomes dependent on the corporations granting him the right to use something for a (monthly) price. In return the corporations try to make the consumer more dependent to remove the consumers' choice to go elsewhere or stop paying. There was a German article about how everything is turned into a market, unfortunately I don't know of an English equivalent:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/n...-ist-1.2110256
One of the things it also goes into is how neoliberalism has led people to think every failure is purely their own fault, which is exactly what makes people try to do what the market wants because we get trained to think that not being the way the market wants us makes it our own fault that we fail for not trying hard enough to be the way the market wants us. So there's your "transforming people".
You forget that surveillance is not purely in the interest of governments, but also corporations. See the article about neoliberalism again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Many of these things are in practice today and yes, I'm aware that the EU was about to sign some of these partnerships, and still is. I never said the EU isn't partially neoliberal, almost everything nowadays is.Quote:
They extravagantly increase incarceration and policing of those whom they deem unfit for the marketplace. They expand both state and corporate power to exercise surveillance and manipulation of subject populations while dismantling judicial recourse to resist such encroachments. Neoliberals introduce new property rights (like intellectual property) to cement into place their extensions of market valuations to situations where they were absent. They strengthen international sanctions such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and investor-state dispute settlement schemes to circumvent and neutralize national social legislation they dislike. They bail out and subsidize private banking systems at the cost of many multiples of existing national income. And they define corporations as legal persons in order to facilitate the buying of elections.
[...]
Second, the selling point of many of these platforms is not just that they provide direct services to the scientist involved. At every stage of research, they provide external third parties with the capacities for evaluation, validation, branding, and monitoring of research programs. Their nominal “openness” constitutes the ideal setup for near real-time surveillance of the research process—a Panopticon of Science, something which can be turned around and sold in just the same way that Facebook provides real-time surveillance of consumer behavior.
The entire first part of the quote above is effectively real in the US nowadays (and encroaching everywhere else), except for the odd one, where Trump left the TPP.
Because you keep quoting them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
In practice, in the UK, the shibboleth is: what do you think about housing? What the answer is, and more relevantly, how the thought process goes, is illustrative of this process in action. Shirley Porter's Westminster council was one form of this, but there's another, far more insidious form, seen in every media in the UK to the point of a religion. The thin end of this wedge began with Thatcher, and the final part of the wedge is Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So... things pre-Thatcher were a-OK? The change to housing had no bearing on the reduction on strikes? Religious conviction indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The Westminster Council - a Public body - failed in their duty. For years, if not decades. Both under a Labour and Conservative government. The Government rules on safety requirements for both fire doors as well as cladding material failed everyone. The private sector equally failed in their use of materials.
But to state that when the State is involved all is working well and it is only the Private Sector that there are problems this is equally revisionist.
~:smoking:
I'm talking about housing as a tool for societal manipulation. Westminster did it a bit too overtly and the councillors got done for gerrymandering. Thatcher did it more covertly with right to buy, thus converting social housing into private housing, putting the government's housing capability into the hands of private landlords, thus driving up both rent and house prices, etc. All egged on by the media everywhere you look: the obsession with ever-rising house prices, house do ups in preparation for rental or being sold on, etc. Shirley Porter was a failure at it and got done. Maggie Thatcher was a raging success at it, to the point that people don't even recognise what she's done.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Well, I would generally agree, but in Britain and the US I would also say that a state based on the FPTP principle is basically set up to fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
:clown:
So much time wasted talking about neoliberals, no interest in dealing with the merits or problems of what they say.
should we do the same for all manner of lefty organisations, do they too have nothing interesting to tell us?
There is a book about this subject I really enjoyed called "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" by Michael Sandel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
He discusses multiple examples of market thinking being introduced further into the public sphere, much to the detriment of the public psyche.
One key example being the use of market incentives to encourage parents at a day care to arrive on time and not keep the workers waiting for an extra 1-2 hours past closing time. The incentive was to implement a fine of X dollars to any parents who arrive more than 10 minutes late. What ends up happening is an increase in absent parents. The explanation Michael gives for this example and the others is that market incentives have undermined a sense of community by conflating wealth with morality. Fewer parents arrived late when the only punishment was a sense of shame for not attending to their child at the agreed pick up time. Once the day care introduced the fine, parents could pay the fine and feel that they compensated the day care for their tardiness. And if they could afford to keep paying the fine, they would keep coming in late.
Another example that most people would consider trivial, but which resonates with me for some reason is the nature of sports stadiums. Specifically, two items:
1. Introduction of secluded skyboxes
2. Naming rights
With the introduction of secluded skyboxes in the later 20th century, sports stadiums no longer sat rich and poor alike in common seats. Now, there was a clear class divide that only serves to generate two entirely separate realities between the haves and have-nots. The removal of communal experience in favor of market principles (more money = better experience) has likely eroded the sense of citizenship between classes.
Also, with the naming rights issue we see the identity of the team itself put on the market for the highest bidder. Cities are very loyal to their teams and by normalizing this relationship we only serve to instill in the public a sense of identity transience since we cannot find common ground even in our sports institutions. Now, it would ignorant to say that naming stadiums after companies has not been a thing since the very beginning, (e.g. Wrigley Field). But stadiums are now either revising their names on a twenty year contractual basis or they are playing off the citizens psyche to exort tax payer money for new stadiums with higher paying naming rights.
Running joke in Chicago is that the Willis Tower is pronounced "Sears". You get the point. Anyway, I enjoyed the book and I feel it highlights issues with neoliberal mindset of making everything under the sun a market.
Somehow, every time I prove you wrong, you suddenly don't like the direction the discussion is taking and propose we discuss something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
But if you really want, does your philosophy have an inherent value of a human life? And if yes, what is it? What should be the minimum standard for humans in your ideal community and how would it be realized?
Prove me wrong...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Rofl. When? How?
You get to post an entertaining little ditty of a web infographic, five minutes of voice over and pastel cartoons, and I provide sixty+ pages of economic tract.
And you proved ME wrong!
This has been a waste of oxygen since the 16th of June.
How do you reject it in practice? Do you reject it personally, but accept it when allies advance it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Let's say I reject the killing of political opponents in theory, but in practice support the establishment of a party secret police... that just happen to do forced disappearances. Ah well, maybe they're not really killing those people?
You point out that ideologies may repeatedly overlap in places while remaining distinct, but again the question is not where do they overlap, but where don't they overlap: where would you not accept them overlapping, as a specific political question? How can one claim to oppose some government or market power while acquiescing to them in the presence of alternatives.
It's OK if you don't wish to deal with the topic, but it is a valid one.
Why do you care so much about not being labeled a neoliberal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
First person to post Das Kapital wins the thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Anyway, here's a good time to repost my summary of the essay on the convergence of neoliberal and Nazi fascist governance structure.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053778878
I didn't prove the paper wrong, but some other things you said in the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The paper is just vague, it even struggles to define the welfare it is talking about and still offers an ideal taxation level to maximize said welfare. The problem is that this is neither here nor there as long as the welfare that is supposedly maximized is not really defined. :shrug:
I've skimmed over various parts and read others in detail, but I'm none the wiser about how the paper would prove anything. Most of it appears to be argumentation about why the authors are right about assuming this or that and one would have to check dozens of other sources to actually verify that. So yeah, I can't prove your paper wrong because I'm unwilling to spend dozens of hours researching, but I'm also not sure your paper proves anything in the first place.
In addition, a search for the word "automation" gets not a single result, so the paper analyzes data all the way back to the 1970s and proposes solutions without taking into account any near-future changes such as automation. What use are economic growth and lower taxes if automation puts millions of people out of work?
Arguments like this one are also far from clear:
The supply of capital can not only be made less elastic, e.g. through treaties that require capital income to be taxed in many countries, there are also still lots of disadvantages to not investing at all, such as inflation reducing the capital. And the last argument about outputs already being taxed is also highly debatable since the outputs can be taxed less if the inputs are taxed more. Plus, capital income is not an input, it's an output of the same processes that prosduce the other output. The investment is an input, but the reuturn on investment, from which you get the capital income, is an output.Quote:
Originally Posted by page 173
The whole conclusion of the study appears to depend on whether you agree with all things the authors see as givens, which are all derived from the libertarian world view and the assumption that the current capitalist model is entirely future-proof and the economy can just grow and grow and grow endlessly on a planet that isn't endless.
How much of capitalism as we currently conceive, depends on assumptions currently proving to be false?
It is difficult in my opinion to hold too much faith in the status quo of mixed economies based on three factors:
1. The inability of wall street to learn from its mistakes. Much as governments have grown in their ability to annihilate each other, our economic institutions also have the ability to destabilize the entire world based on bad practices in one sector. 2008 housing crisis is nothing compared to a theoretical slow down of the Chinese market from 6-7% to 2-3%. With the recent repeal of most of Dodd Frank, it seems old practices are still in demand.
2. Related to point one, the ability of governments to regulate bad behavior in free markets seems more limited as both the complexity and the resistance of the economic institutions grow. Again, see the failure of Dodd frank to last beyond one administration.
3. Developed nations are continuing a trend of downward population growth. Several states are in the negative, many more are strateling the line, propped up barely by immigration. What does this say about how we view the metric of growth when we also recognize the impossibility of several billion people living 1st world standards and encourage developing nations to adhere to the above trend?
Related to point three, the only way out of this conflict seems to be faith that while we live in a limited resource environment, productivity per person is boundless (doubtful). If this was magically the case, we are still on the wrong path since we have seen a decoupling of productivity and real income since the 1970s.
Do we need a new paradigm beyond free markets for the mid 21st century?
Mistake: our markets are not "free". We have state-subsidized, government-mandated markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
1. De-marketize society.
So we need something other than commercial relations as a basis for society. In pre-modern times, it was pure subsistence, religion, violence, and autocratic whim. The 20th century saw attempts at world-historical projects that were too destructive for our prospect.
2. The only future for humanity that isn't a horror-show or outright AI posthumanity (far likelier biological than computational) is a subsistence economy, but with luxurious subsistence as a minimum standard, on the basis of a shared core value in mutual altruism.
Housing, food, healthcare, education, etc. The primary goal of politics becomes assuring the provision of the minimum standard, and expanding it continuously.
3. Automate as much as possible, but leave technological development, especially in biotech like genetic engineering, heavily restricted according to ethical standards like the precautionary principle.
All utopian ideologies depend on shared humanity. Allowing the advent of categorical cleavage in beings not only wrecks that, it obviates 5,000 years of history and philosophy utterly and forever. Everything we have ever done as a species becomes a sick joke.
4. Probably do something about population... There exists a gap between population growth and desired childmaking outcomes, which suggests widespread prosperous subsistence would lead to a baby boom.
????
5. Collectivize childrearing.
5. Everyone has the moral agency to choose their own way of life.
5. Can't we just be pessimists and fatalists? I want to watch my vitreous jelly sucked out by a cyberpunk abomination.
I am not sure of the direction you are taking. But I don't necessarily see anything so drastic.
Personally, I think that we need to go back to the philosophy of Locke and other's who built the groundwork of private property and revisit it in the context of today's state. We should strive more towards the idea that the property belongs to those who put effort or improve upon the land.
What sort of society do we have if we view our relationship through the lens of conditional ownership based around utilization of the land?
Most of society can move on as it is currently because for the most part companies utilize land for the purpose of generating value.
I find there to be something wrong about the inability of cities to clamp down on ghost apartments used by the wealthy overseas to dump money which only serve to remove supply and drive up prices with no value added.
Or how cities must go through a lengthy process just to buy out land that is sitting unused by a stubborn owner that could be used for public transit or a revitalization process.
This isn't to say I want a society where the government owns all of the land and simply hands it out by its corruptible criteria of merit. But the government should have a more active role in remediating rent seeking activities and rewarding those who put forth plans to provide actual value.
And perhaps when it is all said and done a free-ish market like what we have today is the best way to generate wealth. But if that is the case then we are in trouble because more and more the perception of the average citizen like me is that 21st C capitalism is an exercise in manipulating supply and applying magical formulas to optimize self destructive bets and counter bets on each others businesses in order to generate wealth.
EDIT: In my dream society, California would have passed SB827 years ago. We know we need more housing, the land is being mismanaged by local politicians held hostage by NIMBYs. This is clear case of what the people need, and the deference to the local communities has gone beyond the pale.
Follow up about the cities buying out land. I understand there is a process of eminent domain for certain public projects, but I am more frustrated over situations like this.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...htmlstory.html
Key point:
"One way way out of the impasse could arise from Kleinman’s own disengagement.
Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector records show that 2015-16 property taxes on his properties are in default and the first installment on this year’s taxes of $18,251.84 has not been paid. If the default is not cleared by July 1, 2019, the tax collector would initiate a process to sell the properties within four years."
So if he wasn't in default, that land would remain a patch work of abandoned, decrepit buildings for homeless people until death? Also, why does it take 3 years to clear a default payment and then another 4 to sell off the property? A child could go through middle and high school before a shovel even touches the ground.
In capitalism, these people are the capitalists. And the more we progress, the more everything depends on them and their capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
We might also want to be careful not to get too far away from the Brexit discussion here. Perhaps a mod could open a new topic about the end state of capitalism?
As for the Free Market, if you think it rules supreme, let's take the following example:
You're the consumer, who makes an informed decision to buy a shampoo, as the free market principles dictate:
Shampoo A: http://mostlysunnyblog.com/wp-conten...ngredients.jpg
Shampoo B: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tWJ66.jpg
Now answer the following questions in a detailed way:
- Which shampoo is better for your skin and why?
- Which shampoo is less harmful to the environment and why?
- What criteria do you apply when you buy Shampoo?
- Why do you have these criteria and how exactly do they maximize your welfare?
- How do you know that your decision was best and benefits the market, and in extension everyone?
I mean, obviously all this should be easy to explain since the market always makes the best product win through the customer choice, no?
First, let me say I positively squint at the use of eminent domain for the interests of private developers. If there's a housing crisis (which there is, buddy, real estate interests in Albany), then have the city or the state fund, or preferably build, co-living apartments (less trendily known as communal apartments).
I don't see what the special focus on residential land usage is, or how its reform alone contributes to an ideal society. It seems like something that follows from the parameters of the larger frame. Right now, that is rewarding mass speculation (financial rent) and luxury, high-rise, and McMansion development. Why do NIMBYs exist? Is it because they are rich and crotchety? Upper middle-class and anxious about property values? (Only activists have cared much about the concerns of lower-class NIMBYs.) If you don't have to worry about wealth or property values or basic survival, then these concerns can be dminished.
You can only fruitfully speculate on the new shape of these things once you know how the systemic parameters determine where, how, and why people live or go to live, work, and operate in the first place. Right now, almost all movement between locales is for retirement or in pursuit of economic opportunities, largely toward legacy urban centers that arose for all the reasons towns and cities arose. A degree of re-ruralization with infrastructure is one possibility.
A market like we have today is unsustainable, as you should be aware. Markets are indeed highly efficient - at concentrating wealth and power. Our essential and recurring problem is such concentrations of wealth and power. If you don't endeavour to flatten society of wealth and power, you accept that these crises will recur cyclically until such time as humans are replaced as labor capital, civilization is disintegrated technologically or ecologically, or most human energy is bent toward colonizing other worlds.
Unfortunately, we also need to retain enough of our consumption to keep "living standards" high, or reform becomes politically untenable. Therefore, one of the biggest challenges:
1. Match modern living standards and consumption with ecological sustainability*
2. Modern life depends on the extractive industries, which depend on the extreme poverty and suffering of many millions of laborers - eliminate this exploitation, or equality is a lie.
*This isn't to say that we need to preserve this saturated wonderland of conveniences and goodies, which did not exist before the 1990s. The problem is more soluble if you take "modern" as anything post-war, though transport and communication capabilities can't be allowed to degrade.
I don't. It appears to be only your fetish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Significant political change generally comes about when there has been a significant problem or less frequently when there's those who believe in what they're doing - beyond the usual desire to enrich themselves.
Historically, the cycle of wealth was auto-corrected due to invasions or revolutions. It was physically stolen by the victors and generally a lot of it went missing. Now since most wealth is electronic it moves with a speed no single country can match - and there's generally one that's happy to take a cut for shielding it all.
As to sustainability, i rarely hear anyone who concludes with the phrase "thus I need to travel less / have less holidays" etc etc. Always others need to do more; when I knew several people who had chronic illnesses their view was very much redistribution of wealth... to people like themselves, not those earning less than a dollar a day.
Equality is a lie. Always was, always will be. In all placental mammals there is not equality. There is the odd commune here or there, but they indirectly rely massively on the developed world around them for tools, the very foods they eat and security. They never seem to be set up in the middle of the Sahel. Societies beyond subsistence (where everyone is living on the edge) is increasingly unfair. And societies that try to create fairness (as they see it) generally mean others get rich providing the services that are not officially allowed.
But next time... It might all be different.
~:smoking:
But what is wrong with aspiring towards equality of opportunity? That is what is meant by "Libraries gave us power". That is what was intended by things such as Sure Start, that aimed to provide for individuals at the stage where cost most efficiently translates into later opportunity. Socialism doesn't have to only mean redistribution of wealth at the point of use. Something the early C20 socialists were big on, and ironically Blair and Brown were also big on, is giving people the chance to better themselves through their own effort, by providing opportunity that would normally only be available to the already wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Redirecting this towards the thread topic: there are opportunities in Brexit, but only for those who already have. Once the economy properly declines, there will be a chance for those with ready capital to buy up and own ever bigger chunks of the existing economy, while those who are trapped by their inability to escape the rent circle can only watch. In 1990s Russia this led to the rise of the oligarchs. 2020s UK may not be as free of law as Russia was, but the gap between rich and poor will still similarly increase, through the above mechanism. One can already see the leading Brexiteers preparing for it.
Have you considered attending church? They are big on aspiration as well. Stating that divergence between rich and poor is bad is the really easy thing. Stating you'd like a fix is just as easy. Now... HOW are you going to stop things being Bad? Many state those who voted for leave were sick of being ignored by all the tiers of government who mainly enrich themselves and their fellows both in role and also after leaving with some nice directorships. Brexit probably won't really fix this but then what, exactly, will?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Grammar schools? Some say they help, others say they help the middle and upper middle classes get ahead and that's about it. I'm a school governor at a Primary School. The teachers are told to throw money at the less able who are generally the poorer ones knowing that it makes sod all difference since there is no follow through in the evenings / weekends / holidays. What to do? Take all children to be looked after in a lovely egalitarian gulag until they're 18 which might equalise outcomes (for those who don't flee the country) at the cost of individual liberty.
Brexiteers aren't all moral angels? How dare they! But then pro-EU politicians all seem to have their little off shore funds which surely hurt no one. I imagine that those in Finance will descend as the do on any other event they can enrich themselves on - Soros made a fortune on the run on the pound. And after causing almost incalculable damage to the world with his amoral collecting of wealth he's doing some bits to give his soul a wash and brush up.
~:smoking:
1. Thus far, every effort beyond the village/hunter-gatherer band level to 'eschew' markets has met with a poor end result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
2/3. I have read about the concept you evoke in points 2 and 3. In that rendering, a post-market society becomes doable because the use and reuse of resources, 3d printing and technology, etc. lowers the unit production cost of basic items to such a level that making subsistence items ceases to matter on a 'market' level. Though I still think a market would exist for other items/needs etc. for which higher unit costs persisted and/or for which tangible resources were somewhat irrelevant.
4. Thus far, improvements in health, longevity, and standard of living appear to mitigate against population growth. This may speak against the baby boom you suggest. On the other hand, this 'self-imposed' limitation in birth rate has been observed only in Western cultures and in Japan -- I cannot guarantee that other cultures with somewhat different value systems would replicate this trend.
Funding libraries and what they stand for, Sure Start and similar schemes, such as previous governments had done, would be one way of realising these aspirations. What I'm asking for isn't unrealistic; it's what had been done in the past. What is different is the normalisation of concentration of wealth and power, starting with Austerity and continuing with Brexit. Starve existing programmes that provide opportunity, and call the vacuum that eventuates society as it naturally is. No it's not. It's society as you've shaped it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
In housing, the state had previously had recourse to social housing to provide for those who cannot find private housing. And given the evidence, the amount of social housing also helped keep rent down in private housing. Much of this social housing has been moved into private hands, to be let out again to renters. This has been a lucrative market for those who can afford to buy to let, while an ever larger proportion of the population has become renters as they can't afford the first step on the property ladder, and simultaneously rent has become an ever larger proportion of expenditure of those who have to pay it. Is this example of the free market an efficient use of resources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That may well be true, and I'm not sure who here is arguing for full equality and kumbayah.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It still doesn't mean we have to devote our societies to increasing inequality, wish for ourselves and others to be worse off and generally engage in some kind of nihilism if we're not among the rich elites.
One could just as well say that the fight for more equality is about as old and inevitable as the inequality itself.
Besides, humans have a tiny bit more intelligence, technology and potential than quite a few of the other mammals, so far at least.
Is that what you tell failed business entrpreneurs?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk