Heartland

Over here, it's called "Neo-Conservative" (or "NeoCon"). Odd, innit?

Yes, it's odd, but in some way it makes as much sense as "liberal". In my opinion the people who follow this belief are all conservative monsters anyway....

SINsister wrote:If you find the place you're looking for, dear Eva, please let me know. I'll be packing up my sparse belongings and joining you in that sane realm.

*Sigh* Please excuse my prejudices, in my opinion you live in a particularly hellish system. If it was for the money only, I'd say come to Switzerland, as here at least you'd get well payed. As you don't speak German though the highest chances for finding a decent job would be in one of the many banks. Having worked there myself though I know that they are HELL if ever there was one. And you'd be so damn isolated here, as the average American is so much friendlier than the average Zurich inhabitant. Oh, and men are mostly dwarves here, so probably no luck on that front either... Girls of our height have to aim for north, that's where the tall guys are....

We will have to keep on searching for an acceptable answer...

Sorry for the delay, sultan2075, been a bit busy...right then.

sultan2075 wrote:I was clear? What a compliment!

Neo-liberal economics. Eva did a good job of explaining it in a nutshell.

If we take communist economics to be "complete state control" of an country's economy, then neo-liberal economics is "minimal regulation, if not complete deregulation" of an economy. Or in other words, the exact opposite. Which is why we had a rise in noe-liberal economic practice after the fall of the USSR and the collapse of communism in Europe.

What has actually happened with deregulation is that "red tape", or at least the cost of it, for small business has grown while it has decreased for big business. Levelling the playing field in the wrong direction, while saying that the opposite is taking place.

Neo-liberal economics has as one of it's pillars of faith, the belief in the "trickle down" of wealth. When in actual fact the exact opposite happens. For example: Directors increasing their salaries by huge amounts and awarding themselves some very nice share options etc., while keeping the rest of their employees' wages stagnant (wage rises in line with inflation). Even if the said directors have been complete failures.

Another fun thing is that neo-liberal economics despise trade unions or any form of workers' rights that could have a negative impact on profits. After all, their only remit is to maximise profits and improve shareholder value at the expense of everything else.

Leading on from that, we get outsourcing of jobs. Cheaper labour in Asia? Right, we'll close the factory here and open one there. Remember, employees are no longer regarded as "personnel" they're now "human resources", just another thing to be exploited in the pursuit of profit and shareholder value. Neo-liberal economics allows this to happen, coz there's no regulation that states the company must employ the majority of its workforce in its country of origin.

I could go on, but this is turning more into a rant, than an explanation.

Right..deep breath, steady now...

One of the main parts of neo-liberal economic theory and practice is Game Theory. I don't really have the space to go into great detail, but the basics of Game Theory, when applied to the real world, tend to fall apart at the seems. Unfortunately, our political leaders haven't managed to realise this as yet, so they carry on regardless. There was a superb series the BBC did last year (IIRC) about it and how the pursuit of Game Theory by first Thatcher and then Blair, has lead to a lot of socio-economic problems in the UK.

One of the mantras of a neo-liberal economist is: "Leave it to the market." Unfortunately, this leads to the creation of megacorporations and stifles "mom and pop" businesses.

Another mantra is: "Privatisation of all utilities and commodities." This includes water, as well as things like power generation and public transport. (I can give you a really good example of neo-liberal "regulation" here in regards to the UK's water companies, if you'd like).

Right, I'll leave it there for now as it's my turn to cook dinner tonight and you've got some reading to do.

Thanks for a wonderfully clear explanation!

Syberberg wrote:Neo-liberal economics has as one of it's pillars of faith, the belief in the "trickle down" of wealth. When in actual fact the exact opposite happens. For example: Directors increasing their salaries by huge amounts and awarding themselves some very nice share options etc., while keeping the rest of their employees' wages stagnant (wage rises in line with inflation). Even if the said directors have been complete failures.

Another fun thing is that neo-liberal economics despise trade unions or any form of workers' rights that could have a negative impact on profits. After all, their only remit is to maximise profits and improve shareholder value at the expense of everything else.

Leading on from that, we get outsourcing of jobs. Cheaper labour in Asia? Right, we'll close the factory here and open one there. Remember, employees are no longer regarded as "personnel" they're now "human resources", just another thing to be exploited in the pursuit of profit and shareholder value. Neo-liberal economics allows this to happen, coz there's no regulation that states the company must employ the majority of its workforce in its country of origin.

Yes, but Syberberg, it seems that you're assuming that the "powers that be" aren't aware of the monstrous toll this is taking on the poor and powerless. Not only are they aware, they're gleefully pursuing such ends posthaste! No one'll ever be honest or bold enough to come out and say such things, because then the neo-Nazism/neo-Fascism of the U.S. far right would have to be acknowledged. The poor (and especially poor/underprivileged non-whites) aren't stupid or blind.

The bottom line is that if the NeoCons could find some Hitler-esque excuse for utterly disposing of the U.S. underclass (in such a way that Civil War II wouldn't break out over here, that is), I'm sure they'd go for it in a heartbeat. I'm sure this mentality's not limited to the sadistic U.S. corporate whores, either.

Sadly, Sinnie, you're right.

SINsister wrote: Yes, but Syberberg, it seems that you're assuming that the "powers that be" aren't aware of the monstrous toll this is taking on the poor and powerless. Not only are they aware, they're gleefully pursuing such ends posthaste! No one'll ever be honest or bold enough to come out and say such things, because then the neo-Nazism/neo-Fascism of the U.S. far right would have to be acknowledged. The poor (and especially poor/underprivileged non-whites) aren't stupid or blind.

The bottom line is that if the NeoCons could find some Hitler-esque excuse for utterly disposing of the U.S. underclass (in such a way that Civil War II wouldn't break out over here, that is), I'm sure they'd go for it in a heartbeat. I'm sure this mentality's not limited to the sadistic U.S. corporate whores, either.

I don't think I could've put that any better Sinnie.

Sadly, TPTB know exactly what they're doing. They're certainly intelligent enough to realise what the consequences are. They just don't actually care and haven't yet had to deal with the reality of living on a finite planet, so they believe that economic growth can continue and that, eventually manufacturing jobs etc., will return to the UK/USA/Europe (to replace the mainly service-based industry) once wages in Asia, and then Africa after that, have overtaken the wages here. Or rather, once workers here will accept pay and conditions they normally wouldn't because they will have no other choice. Unfortunately, this isn't going to work, well, not without a lot of demand destruction in the two main global areas that collectively consume approx. 50% of the world's resources. Or more specifically, two countries and (the majority of) one continent.

Eva Thank you.

mh wrote:Sadly, Sinnie, you're right.

Seconded. And, sadly too, a lot of people who are actually on the loosers' side, still believe they (could) belong to the winners of the system. At least here, where I live. And that's one of the reasons why nothing ever changes.

On a slightly less sad note: This thread is one of the reasons why I love HL. You'll always find very bright people here who share their thoughts. Gives me a good feeling. to you lot...

This neo-liberalism thing is interesting, and I'll have more to say on it later. For the moment, though, I'd like to point out that it's not the same thing as neoconservatism. Neoconservatism has much more in common with modern liberalism than it does with classical liberalism (I'll flesh this out later, though, as I have to run), and actually originates with Trotskyites in New York City in the mid 20th century. In fact, I've got a small piece that I wrote about the origins of neoconservatism for my students, perhaps I should post parts of it?

I'm a little confused about the idea of neo-liberalism. Neo-Conservatism I get insofar as it seems to apply almost exclusively to the Bush-ites and their PNAC friends, but neo-liberalism defeats me.

I would call myself a liberal, to the same extent that The Economist magazine calls itself liberal. Free movement of goods, capital, labour and ideas, no tariffs, no protectionism, and the government being involved as little as possible. After all, experience shows that the government does not spend its money as wisely as regular consumers do (witness the "no-bid" contracts awarded to KBR, for example), does not always look for the best value for its dollar, and generally behaves as if the money was theirs.
Liberals (and this has become something of a dirty word in recent years in the US) accept that government has a role, but that role should be as small as possible (something that has historically been a Republican campaign plank, but that seems to be changing). A liberal society is a tough one to live in, because you're required to make choices for yourself, and it has overtones of Darwinian theory, but to paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst system possible except for all the others.

The use that neo-liberalism makes of government power would indicate that it's not really liberalism at all, rather some "have your cake and eat it too" b@stardisation of a good idea.

EvilBastard wrote:I'm a little confused about the idea of neo-liberalism. Neo-Conservatism I get insofar as it seems to apply almost exclusively to the Bush-ites and their PNAC friends, but neo-liberalism defeats me.

I would call myself a liberal, to the same extent that The Economist magazine calls itself liberal. Free movement of goods, capital, labour and ideas, no tariffs, no protectionism, and the government being involved as little as possible. After all, experience shows that the government does not spend its money as wisely as regular consumers do (witness the "no-bid" contracts awarded to KBR, for example), does not always look for the best value for its dollar, and generally behaves as if the money was theirs.
Liberals (and this has become something of a dirty word in recent years in the US) accept that government has a role, but that role should be as small as possible (something that has historically been a Republican campaign plank, but that seems to be changing). A liberal society is a tough one to live in, because you're required to make choices for yourself, and it has overtones of Darwinian theory, but to paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst system possible except for all the others.

The use that neo-liberalism makes of government power would indicate that it's not really liberalism at all, rather some "have your cake and eat it too" b@stardisation of a good idea.

It think what's confusing you EB[/i] is that neo-liberalism is predominantly an economic concept, rather than a political or social concept.

For example, most neo-Conservatives adhere to a neo-liberal economic system, but they increasingly adhere to a more authoritarian social agenda and a greater emphasis on militaristic based foreign policy, rather than diplomatic based one.

A lot of it is about cutting essential basic public services (like health, education, transport) so much to the bare bone in order to falsely generate gaps in the market for private operators to jump into. There are elements of EB's "liberalism" in there for sure, but it's taken to the n'th degree and primarily motivated by economic ideologies. "Competition" and "competitiveness" is their mantra.

mh wrote:A lot of it is about cutting essential basic public services (like health, education, transport) so much to the bare bone in order to falsely generate gaps in the market for private operators to jump into. There are elements of EB's "liberalism" in there for sure, but it's taken to the n'th degree and primarily motivated by economic ideologies. "Competition" and "competitiveness" is their mantra.

The drive for "competitiveness" also has the adverse effect of lowering quality and standards of product/service. Admittedly, not right across the board though.

Then there's the problem of mass production giving economy of scale that has lead to over exploitation of, and increasingly rapid loss of, resources and increased levels of environmental destruction. (That's also exacerbated by over population, but that's another discussion entirely).

The increase in "competition" usually has the end result of large companies/corporations buying up successful smaller companies and turning their product in to a "brand". This, effectively, ends competition and creates de facto monopolies.

An example of the above: HSBC bought Midland Bank in the mid 1990's. By the end of the 1990's Midland Bank had had first its famous griffin logo changed, then removed for the HSBC one, then it's company colour scheme was changed to match HSBC's and finally Midland Bank as a separate entity vanished. You can actually see this happening with the recent (2004) purchase of Abbey by the Santander Group. The Abbey's corporate logo and colour scheme have been changed to match that of the Santander Group's and, eventually, the name "Abbey" will disappear to be replaced with Banco Santander, or just Santander.

For those who might be interested, here's a little exercise in intellectual/political history.

The neoconservatives may be in decline today. They are a small group of intellectuals, mostly in the social sciences. This is the Kristol family side of things. The Podhoretz side was concerned with foreign policy, literature and culture, thus the Irving (and later, Bill) Kristol/National Interest side fits the textbook definition of neoconservatism better. There were lots of sociologists involved; Irving himself, while not a sociologist, was a fellow traveler. It is important to note that the first generation of neoconservatives were cultural pessimists. Max Weber, who argued that the origins of capitalism could be found in Calvinism, was very influential on them. Unlimited acquisition, he argued, was actually a kind of decayed Calvinism. The spirit of capitalism was thus a this-worldly Protestantism—modest consumption and unlimited acquisition, not conspicuous consumption. Weber connected this with Calvinist determinism, and argued that this doctrine creates anxiety. How so? Believers wanted a sign of their fate, a revelation of destiny. Calvinist ministers suggested that success here was a sign of predestination for heaven. They poured themselves into the achievement of success as a sign of salvation. Daniel Bell argued that this is fine, until Calvinism loses its hold. Thus, the children of these Calvinist capitalists turn to conspicuous consumption rather than accumulation—a decadent Calvinism becomes a decadent capitalism. At this point in the argument, there is no moral justification for capitalism; it has collapsed. Social Darwinism and the 1950’s managerial ethic both tried, in the face of this collapse, to justify capitalism. The neoconservatives diagnosed a moral vacuum at the heart of capitalism; in other words, capitalism depended on something that was itself pre-capitalist. Irving Kristol—borrowing somewhat from Martin Diamond—turned this analysis onto US democracy. Diamond argued that the American Founders built on low but stable ground, i.e., they aimed at a republicanism based upon self-interest, not virtue. Self-interest would be relied upon to keep the branches from encroaching on each other. They would jealously guard their own power and turf. The notion was of the Constitution as a machine, powered by self-interest, which would yield good government even though the actors involved are pursuing their own self-interest. Republican society is therefore a large array of competing interest groups, thus majority tyranny is hard to attain. Madison makes much the same argument at numerous points in the Federalist Papers.

However, Kristol worried that this system would eventually undermine itself and the virtue/genius required to either recreate or repair the system would not exist. In other words, they argued that democracy depended upon pre-democratic virtues. The system required these virtues, but did not have the capacity to renew them—it was thus running on a dwindling moral capital (this is still the neoconservative view). The moral gas-tank, running low, needs to be refueled.

Why did they become neo-conservatives? We have to look at the 60’s to discern the answer—first, the form taken by Vietnam opposition on the New American Left viewed the war not as a foreign policy mistake, but as a sin, evidence of the morally flawed character of the nature of America, essentially attacking the entire project of anti-communism (one finds a similar tendency regarding the Iraq war today). The New American Left’s claim was that the US was always imperialist/expansionist and that the USSR was actually playing defense.

The first generation of neoconservatives had flirted with Stalinism and Trotskyism; the famous Trotskyites were in alcove I in the CCNY cafeteria, and the Stalinists were in alcove II. Podhoretz was at Columbia University; he was a committed liberal, at the time, but not a communist.
A second factor in the rise of the neoconservatives was the rise of the countercultural New Left and their explosion onto the college campus, seeking to undermine universities and academic freedom. When the neoconservatives saw armed students coercing schools, they took note of both the fascist approach of the protesters and the supinity of the university liberals in the face of the violent threats. This is part of what moved the nascent neoconservative movement to the right. Concurrent with this, the Democratic Party was ceding its anti-communist credentials to the GOP. This is the basic story.

In the 70’s and 80’s a group of neoconservatives—some still prominent names, from Michael Novak to Father Neuhaus—begin to argue differently about the cultural decline of American democracy, seeing greater resources for replenishment within US democracy. Novak argued that Christianity broadly (and Catholicism specifically) and capitalism were mutually reinforcing traditions. Christianity and capitalism could reinforce each other, once capitalism was understood as a creative and even charitable endeavor (you can probably find the outlines of such a view in Thomas Aquinas). James Q. Wilson(another big name) argued that if you focus on recidivism and take care of small crime, you’ll rebuild communities and accumulate a measure of moral/social capital—this is the so-called broken-windows theory. Father Neuhaus, as well as others, argued that if government leaves churches and similar private organizations alone, there would be a moral renaissance. This view is ultimately more Tocquevillian than Lockean (see Tocqueville's Democracy in America). The neoconservatives of the 70’s and 80’s find sources for moral renewal in the United States, and become interested in religious revivals and in evangelism.

Thus, in the second generation of neoconservatives (Bill Kristol, the Kagans, etc), there’s a more positive view of the possibility of a cultural and/or political reconstruction. The Bush Doctrine owes something to this. This is the critical point: They thought democracy could generate a hospitable culture if implanted in an inhospitable one. When you add the low but solid foundations to this, you get a more favorable view of the possibilities of democratization—you can count on everyone to be self-interested because they’re human. If that’s true, why can’t you have democracy almost anywhere? This is how the neoconservatives go from anti-utopianism to promoters of democratization. The contemporary conservative movement is an amalgamation of neoconservatism with traditional moral and social conservatism. Incidentally, the democracy project in the middle east fails to live up to the theory because the theory fails to take into account that some peoples might prefer the life of faith to the life of liberty or freedom.

In the late 20th century, not only does the USSR fall, it happens almost without a fight. Secondly, the “third wave� of democratization sweeps the world—Europe (especially Eastern Europe), Africa, Asia, and South America. Neoconservatives took this third wave of democratization as more evidence that the cultural prerequisites for democracy are lower than you’d think (They also see the US as having regenerated itself. In their eyes, the people are morally healthier than the elites. The problem, as they see it, is that anti-Americans command the intellectual heights—namely, the universities and the media). The success of the Reagan Revolution showed them that things could change, and that healthy civil society and regular people could save us. It’s the liberal ironists (see Richard Rorty) in the universities and Hollywood that are corrupt, not the people. Remember, in the 70’s there was no reason to think things would ever improve. Détente was viewed as a managed decline by many, with the US as the declining Athens in the face of the USSR as an ascendant Sparta (a comparison that Kissinger to this day denies making, but is credited with by many others). Aside from the history, the larger point is that nothing is inevitable in politics.