EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

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.

[Husar]

"shhhh! don't tell anyone you've figured it out..."

*looks around furtively*

No, specifically, I was referring to you and your refusal to engage with ideas that may bear the taint of 'neoliberalism'.
n.b. which other people might simply brand the anglo-saxon economic model (a cross-cutting but different beast entirely).

Lol, no, I find that idea as silly as the notion of reds under the bed.
To the extent it might have some truth, it is only the surface similarity due to the cross-cutting nature anglo-saxon liberalism, as someone famous once said: reality has a liberal bias.

On these notes: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2...ot-speak-name/

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?

You're really fitting the description.

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.

(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)

[Furunculus]

On these notes: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2...ot-speak-name/

You're really fitting the description.

We shall see.

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.

I agree, it's a very interesting article.

(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)

No problem, all good fun.

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

[Montmorency]

(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."

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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?

[Montmorency]

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.

But there's an even better way to discern focus: whose table set will you sit at?

It's nice to have theoretical disagreements, but how much do policy prescriptions differ?

[Furunculus]

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.

Perhaps, but they're not any more of a problem to me than the frothing lunatics on the corbynite left.

Considering the demonisation of neoliberals, your preferred classical liberalism is even more alien to modern society than neoliberalism.

That's an interesting view. That I don't share.
Maybe you believe that because your view of society is homogenous, where mine is heterogenous.

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?

Yes, it's about two years old now. :D

But there's an even better way to discern focus: whose table set will you sit at?

It's nice to have theoretical disagreements, but how much do policy prescriptions differ?

Neither the lunatics of the corbinite left, nor too the lunatics of the neoliberal right.

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!

[Montmorency]

Neither the lunatics of the corbinite left, nor too the lunatics of the neoliberal right.

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.

Next, what are (some) classical-liberal policies? What are (some) neoliberal policies? What have they been?

Is there any daylight between the two?

[Furunculus]

Let's start with the proposition that if one doesn't oppose neoliberal policies, then one is a neoliberal at last.

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?

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Furunculus]

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?

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...

[Husar]

Perhaps, but they're not any more of a problem to me than the frothing lunatics on the corbynite left.

You are aware though, that the left and statism aren't all the same either, right?
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...

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?

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.

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"?

[Furunculus]

You are aware though, that the left and statism aren't all the same either, right?
You seem very happy about not being a neoliberal and then you appear to lump the entire left into one basket.

Sure, but is that so very different from shouting "NEOLIBERAL" at anything vaguely right-wing?
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."

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...

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.
I just don't share it.

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"?

You've just gone to great lenghts to:
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?

[Montmorency]

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?

[Husar]

Sure, but is that so very different from shouting "NEOLIBERAL" at anything vaguely right-wing?
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."

Now you're being very, very wrong on two fronts:

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:

Core MPS members helped shape the construction of the think-tank infrastructure. In Thatcher’s Britain, the founding of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) can be traced back to advice delivered to Antony Fisher, a businessman who had read and had been impressed by the Reader’s Digest version of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Fisher went to see Hayek and asked for his advice as to what he should do to further the cause. Hayek advised him not to go into politics, but instead to start a public policy think tank. This he was able to do—with the support of his profitable firm, Buxted Chickens, the first of the British battery hen companies. The wellsprings of neoliberal liberty in Britain, friends of the IEA might be forced to admit, had a little too much for comfort to do with the imprisonment of hens.14 But it had almost nothing to do with the spontaneous inclinations of wealthy people each acting on their own.

The IEA is in fact a neoliberal organization that was formed with help of the MPS, the mother of all neoliberal organizations.
So you did in fact quote a neoliberal organization and now you claim I was crying wolf?

You've just gone to great lenghts to:
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.
[...]
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?

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?
What good is the theoretical difference when you quack like a neoliberal, walk like a neoliberal and look like a neoliberal in practice? ;)

[Beskar]

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.

[Furunculus]

Monte and Husar are still getting hot and sweaty about neoliberals, not sure where this thread is usefully going now...

[Pannonian]

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.

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.

[Montmorency]

Monte and Husar are still getting hot and sweaty about neoliberals, not sure where this thread is usefully going now...

Nooo, not neoliberals, "classical" liberals. I must be being unclear.

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.

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?

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[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?

[Pannonian]

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.

[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?

[Husar]

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:

Monte and Husar are still getting hot and sweaty about neoliberals, not sure where this thread is usefully going now...

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...

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.

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.

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.

This transformation is already going on and you appear to support most of the policies that facilitate that transformation.
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:

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. They could not acknowledge individual natural rights, because they sought to tutor the masses to become the agent the market would be most likely to deem successful. The market no longer gave you what you wanted; you had to capitulate to what the market wanted. All areas of life could be better configured to behave as if they were more market-like.

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.
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".

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.

You forget that surveillance is not purely in the interest of governments, but also corporations. See the article about neoliberalism again:

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.

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.
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.

Again, in the context of brexit and the rump-eu; why the myopic fixation on neoliberalism?

Because you keep quoting them!

[Pannonian]

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.
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".

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

So... things pre-Thatcher were a-OK? The change to housing had no bearing on the reduction on strikes? Religious conviction indeed.

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.

[Pannonian]

So... things pre-Thatcher were a-OK? The change to housing had no bearing on the reduction on strikes? Religious conviction indeed.

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.

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.

[Husar]

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.

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.