Degenerate ideologies like neoliberalism (e.g. fascism) will always die

To neoclassical economists: don't let the door hit you on the way out.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03...nd-of-the-neoliberal-approach-to-development/

 

Just say laissez-faire capitalism, liberal confuses us Americans.

 

I cannot change the subject line now, otherwise I would.

 

The title clearly shows that you don't know how to use "e.g." (exempli gratia) properly. So, if you're going to redo the title, there's more to do than that. But it's not only your latin skill that's lacking. Seemingly, because you seem to equate neoliberalism with fascism, you're evidently politically illiterate aswell, or possibly making a poor attempt at humour. Either way, I'm neither suprised nor amused.

 

I've given up explaining my political positions on this site nor do I think most people would care, so I dedicate my time here to attacking the other side.

 

The difference is meaningless. Either corporations are in control or they aren't. I could care less how totalitarian they are as long as my porn (and Chinese literature, I guess) isn't effected, I only dislike them because I think they are going to get us all killed.

 

Hah, well, I appriciate the honesty! Can't say I'm much better myself actually. People here doesn't really care about actually learning anything, so I'll just point out that they're wrong, most likely in a rude and arrogant manner. (don't take it personally).

You're not one of those who thinks that corporatism actually refers to business-style corporations, or that fascism is about establishing a borgeoise dictatorship, are you?

 

Why are we discussing terminology? I just named my terms. To some extent, corporations were not in control either in Germany or Italy. The Italitian corporations used Fascism to harm the labour movement, but they were not in control. That doesn't make it leftist, as you might hope it would. It does make it more sovereign than the United States government.

 

Because I want to know what you're actually arguing for before I start arguing against it. Quite frankly, I don't get your point. My point anyways, is that neoliberalism isn't even remotely similar to fascism.

 

That's simple, I'm anti-corporate. Unless they're a harmless small business.

 

So why are you arbitrarily against efficiency?

 

Because it serves them and not me. They're partisans, they don't serve community, they serve themselves.

 

Do you think it's reasonable to demand of people that they serve anyone but themselves? Are you demanding they be made slaves? Aren't small businesses also serving themselves? Are all your actions for the community, or do you sometimes serve yourself?

Nevermind the moral complications, the unreasonable and unrealistic demands, and potential hypocricy, what really matters is what actually benefits the community. As it happens, individuals pursuing their own interest can, if acting within the proper system, unintentionally serve the public welfare. That's the insight Adam Smith shared with us.

 

In public matters, yes. This isn't their mansion. Let them serve themselves there.

I never serve myself. I even dedicate my food as an end to some particular purpose.

That is possible, in the right framework. I do not see what you are objecting to, then. You dislike serving the world subjectively (as a subjective goal), but not objectively (as an objective end). That makes you insane. Simply put, you do not mind serving as long as you are made to do it. You only dislike doing it willingly.

 

What's that supposed to mean? As soon as you step outside you're everyone else's slave?

Alright, cool..

Well, the moral and practical arguments are actually separate. I'm not saying I don't want to serve the public, I'm saying that demanding everyone do so will actually produce a worse outcome for the publci welfare.

 

We already do so by forbidding various corruptions. What is of significance is the acquiring of unruly amounts of wealth and oligarchical groupings. There is no possible outcome but malus to the public welfare by allowing the formation of oligarchies and parties whose purpose is the promotion of general impoverishment - such as some what what has happened in the realm of mortgages. There is no reason for these interests to be grouped in oligarchical formats. They can be arrayed in other patterns less suspectable to conspiracy while preserving productivity.

 

no, no, no, you're getting things wrong. Acquiring wealth per se isn't a problem, especially not since it's only acquired by providing services to the people. You don't want to tax just to make the rich less rich, you'd want to tax because one can use the taxes for social programs etc. One is pure jealousy, the other is common sense. I hope you just chose your words poorly, and that it wasn't a reflection of a moral flaw of yours.

Also, their goal isn't the general impverishment, their goal is their own interest. Not the same thing, not at all. You know ford pushed for higher wages so that people could buy his cars?

 

Neoliberals are the enemy of each and every of us and things will not get better until we achieve the physical extermination of them , their children and their grandchildren .
It doesn't matter if you are a brown, a red or a blue , this goes beyond ideology , lifestyle or culture. Neoliberals are out to suck our blood with their hot air printed money , violate everything we hold dear and sentence the next generations into slavery.

 

Oh come on! But you know, if this is what you, and other commies, really are thinking, would you be suprised if us neoliberals used our wealth to hire nazis to defend us? Seems reasonable to me.

 

That is not the only way in which it is acquirable.

In the case of people who are forming partisanships, they should simply be disabled.

"Nothing is more valuable than the royal person, more honourable than the throne, more powerful than the authority of the sovereign, and more august than the position of the ruler. Generals and ministers who would leave the sovereign's interests behind and prosper the welfare of their own families instead, should be ousted by the ruler of men."

Just because you experience jealousy does not mean I do. I have no desire for material acquisition and I find the accusation infantile and repulsive.

I don't have morals, my politics are tactical. Wealth is power and it's accumulation is dangerous. Let useful individuals have their mansions - just not lots of money. I am sure the choice involved in the free-market ideology can be satisfied with less money in the bank at any given time and the rest satisfied with a credit system not usable for the accumulation of power.

That's where you are wrong. One whose goal is profit doesn't have to have general impoverishment as an aim, but the aim of many of these people is inequality pure and simple. They're psychopaths who wish to harm the people inorder to increase the disparity of power.

 

no, of course not, one could just steal or plunder. But in a free market system, it's all based on voluntary trades, by which both parties per definition benefit.

You mean that they should be deprived of the free speech?

Are you then saying that taxation for the sake of reducing peoples' wealth per se is a good thing, and that it wouldn't be based on jealousy?

So it's concentration of power that bothers you? Understandable, and I agree. But wouldn't you agree that the power to use force, i.e. government's power, is far more powerful than the mere convince-based power big business have in the markets? You can't reduce business' power without giving power to the state, and in my view, the state is far more dangerous.

okay. I seriously doubt that though.

 

Benefit per-se. But you don't take notice of money then used for destructive purposes.

I find the materialism of the middle and lower classes just as repugnant.

Government can be dealt with by a divide-and-conquer strategy, only oligarchies are dangerous. Thus organizations like the CIA are dangerous, but in a state of order matters can be investigated by lone agents. In a state of order, and with meritorious persons wielded properly, all things can be administrated more simply.

A state isn't necessary. The USSR was backward.

 

There are easier ways of solving that problem. How about just making that illegal?

Evidently, they do not agree. Live and let live? and not tax them to death?

Dealt with by whom? You, as a lone individual? pardon, but that's naive.

What then, if not a state?

 

There are no free markets, never have been, never will be. So if this is the case, how can anything be based on something that doesn't exist?

 

Not in an abolsute sense perhaps, but free regardless.