Global Neoliberalism and the Rigged Government / Capitalist Enterprise

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The first video is a short talk by author and economist Naomi Klein about the way Global Neoliberalism has negatively impacted developing countries. "Yes, we're here from the First World governments and we're going to help you".


The second video is a short presentation showing economist Mark Blyth and Noam Chomsky obliterating Joe Rogan's and Jordan Peterson's romantically naive views of the binary positive benefits of Capitalism. The former discuss just who is ultimately responsible for the various technologies inside Apple products and many or most of whatever beneficial pharmaceuticals we have.


Would I be wrong in calling these global and domestic formulations fascism writ large?

Not that there weren't prior signs of problems to the 1886 decision (actually the damage given in it's 'headnote' summary) of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad whose subsequent reference to by the Supremes has turned corporations into figurative superhumans, but ever since the federal government has been in the complete swampy sway of large unaccountable corporations, some foreign. Such is the incestuous relationship of our government and big business that literally defines fascism in economic terms.

And, this is just one reason that Yang's Freedom Dividend is so attractive, making every adult citizen a virtual stockholder in the government corporation. If the taxpayer is going to pay for basic research, then the citizen stockholders must get their direct return on investment that currently goes to the few, who actually took the lesser risks.
 
Dear Richard,

Naomi Klein's claims there are correct but also obsolete, since after 2008 she could not adapt to the reality of economic decline. The day Trump was elected I was depressed because I thought WW3-hypin' Hillary was going to be elected. I turned on TV early and found her ahead. I was depressed all day until I suddenly heard on the radio that Trump had won. It was not going to be WW3 after all - I rejoiced.

Naomi Klein, I later found, was also in Australia at this time - but she was going to party with her Green friends, rejoicing in Hillary's victory. Their smiles slumped and the party fizzled out as Trump's Flyover-State victory emerged. She lives in a wacko-liberal world of her own. She knows neo-liberalism doesn't work but she has no answer about how to deal with generalized economic collapse post-2008 - a mixed economy has to have someone at the top, a really effective caste of rulers, a just Fuehrerprinzip with police to make the tax collection work through correct policies. She doesn't even admit this but continues to embrace democratic 'lovey-dovey' options.

As for Noam Chomsky and his chumps. He only peddles the idea of State Capitalism as capitalism, that the US (and other) governments are the primary offenders - and not the actual, relatively obscure financiers and business leaders. Chomsky's blame-the-government-primarily is nonsense; rather, business owns the government as we see from the US Federal Reserve. Chomsky's BS exculpates the wealthy Judaeo-Christians who run the banks and in turn the government, since these wealthy cannot even be identified. Instead we just get a few front men like Bill Gates who are happy to fulfil these populist roles, just like the politicians, as well as Chomsky carping on about obvious long-standing swindles like pharmaceutical patents. But no one can act against such companies since any effective opposition to such companies and government requires organization, authoritarian organization which Chomsky will always decry as undemocratic, elitist, populist, Leninist, bureaucratic, fascist etc., in effect ensuring that NOTHING will ever be done, thus reaffirming the status quo. No wonder Joe calls him a "lifetime actor"!

When I have to listen to the empty gestures of Noam Chomsky I like to hear approaching jackboots in step - ones that will crush this piece of Schweindreck into oblivion.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The thread is about the general concept of Neoliberalism, which I hope to comment on more. It is not, and as is my general policy otherwise, not an endorsement of the messenger(s), certainly not you.

Sadly, most 'citizens' on either the American Right or Left are aware unaware of the nuances between the respective 'neo' variants of their political leanings, or that the national strata of their party leaderships are essentially a crypto-monoparty. Hence, there was no reason for you to get excited one way or the other, nor ever was there.

593

At one point you had explained to us that you were going to deatil for us a kinder and gentler Fascism, but instead you are revealing ever more fangs.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Edits made 10/20/19

I hope to post the rest of these videos. I've only watched this one, Part 3 (because it had Mont Pelerin in the title) below so far. It moves pretty fast so it takes some effort to digest. Watching Part 1 first is best as it establsihes the contextual background -- and that fascist Claude Badley is in unwitting league with the Koch brothers, who he just bashed on the Globalist Warming thread.

It mentions Neoliberalism as a reaction to Keynes (Keynesianism aka Embedded Liberalism, aka Social Democracy), whose ideas were in response to the problems of Liberalism's Laizzez-Faire Capitalism, for instance the Robber Barons and their monopolies, and the Wall Street Collapse that also enabled the rise of Hitler's fascism. It discusses Friedrich Hayek, his mentor von Mises, but I was not aware of Hayek's association with the London School of Economics, as was Keynes. And that the LSE was originally founded by Fabians. Seemingly strange bedfellows. Not mentioned in the video, the Mont Pelerin Society also had associations with the remnants of Euro-royalty like the Hapsburgs and Bourbons. So here I am yet confused with the presentation of Hayek and the Austrian School as forms of Neoliberalism. But Part 1 clears that up.

With the rise of the late 1970's libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party in the USA, Reagan expediently(?) announced that he was a (l)ibertarian Republican and ever since a range of Neoliberal policies have been constantly implemented till today, gutting the middle class, which was ironically built during and after WWII. My understanding was that the Austrian School libertarianism was supposed to be a return to (classical) Liberal laizzez-faire economics, and in this sense, Reagan had opened the floodgates to such as offshoring of jobs to such as China. Then came the Tea Party in reaction to that, and Trump has bastardized that. Part 1 discusses how Jimmy Carter, a member of the Trilateral Commission actually got the Neoliberal ball rolling.

So, is libertarianism just a bait and switch front for Neoliberalism and its socialism for the rich, which is what I have taken to arguing more recently? It seems so to me, and as such Hayek's Road to Serfdom might more honestly be titled Two Roads to Serfdom, the Right and the Left.

Mentioned early on is that the reactionaries, then as now, characterize anything less than pure or corporate capitalism as Bolshevism, binary thinking and framing. Such is why so many 'royal's monarchists and cryptomonarchists supported the fascists, even though they weren't really allowed in because of the false advertising image of such as National Socialism. As I've discussed elsewhere, the socialism in National Socialism was of a wholly different character than Socialism as typically understood. And this is why so many American and Western corporations financed the Nazis before and during the war.

Part 3 of This is Neoliberalism, it covers Hayek and briefly the role of the Mont Pelerin Society (the royal seedcorn that gave rise to libertarianism, better covered in Part 1 yet still minus the monarchist vector):


A graphic from the above:
597
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
(Please see my edits in the prior post about Part 3 of this series on Neoliberalism.)

The following is Part 1 which should logically be watched first. I watched Part 3 first because YouTube recommended it to me first and it had Mont Pelerin in the title.

As such, Part 1 is essential to understanding what is going on from its inception and how we got here. It also provides much more context of the Mont Pelerin Society, yet leaves out the monarchist association which is critical. It includes mentioning the Koch brothers association with the libertarians and their Cato Institute, and their funding of the Tea Party movement.

All fascist fronts for the hidden agenda, which Claude Badley is a dupe of, or at least he appears to be a dupe of. His heart is in the right place, as were all 'good' Nazis (infested with bad ideas, because they don't understand dialectics and advanced human shepherding). What we need is a return to Embedded Liberalism, on steroids (as Yang proposes), and replace the private Federal Reserve Bank with a government owned central bank. California just enabled the creation of local government banks, similar to North Dakota's state bank, BTW.

 
Yes, Richard, I could not resist watching all three videos one after the other but not in the originally-intended order - they are really compelling. Having been at school studying economics in 1972-3, I well remember the stagflation - and the fact it wasn't in the textbooks. This marks the beginning of the neoliberal agenda, i.e. the abandonment of "embedded liberalism" (a new term for me). The neoliberal agenda has of course presided over the global stagnation and destruction - but allows Judaeo-Christians to rise to the top when everyone else goes to the dogs. Reminds me of those not-too-famous words from the Gospel of Thomas, saying 102:

"Woe unto the Pharisees, they are like a dog in an ox-manger, neither will he eat nor will he let the animals eat."

I.e. unless the underlying social and religious issues, which the Left studiously ignores and suppresses even when the environment and human dignity is falling apart around them, are dragged out in the open, everyone in the world will be a goner indeed.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes, Embedded Liberalism was new to me, and as discussed in Part 2 it was new to the Embedded Liberalists. In Part 2, below, I really like the explanation of how Classical Laissez-Faire Liberalism and Neoliberalism effectively make markets the master of society, while Embedded Liberalism started by Keynes returned markets to their more traditional role in societies, a broad swath of societies besides the West.

But, you do admit that Keynes et al. were regarded as crypto Bolshevists, right?

Part 2:

 
Too right! I certainly do admit that Keynes et al. ...
In Part 2, below, I really like the explanation of how Classical Laissez-Faire Liberalism and Neoliberalism effectively make markets the master of society, while Embedded Liberalism started by Keynes returned markets to their more traditional role in societies, a broad swath of societies besides the West.

But, you do admit that Keynes et al. were regarded as crypto Bolshevists, right?
...were indeed treated as crypto-Bolshevists. In fact, this is the very core of the suite of objections Friedrich Augustus von Hayek has to any socialistic or hierarchical* teaching. With the free-market-über-alles ideology in effect over 40 years we have ended up with masses of the terminally poor, so the predominant mass of the masses turning rightward is merely the end result of this situation.

You don't ever find Hayek saying much in English about this - given that any actual talk by him ist "mit deutschem Akzent erfüllt", making him seem like some unrepentant Nazi. E.g.


where he is referring to the economist Carl Menger, not Doctor Mengele!:p

Yours faithfully
Claude

*I have decided to use the term 'hierarchicalism' to describe my position of fundamental human character differences having to be recognized as having rights over the democratic-egalitarian agenda in order for any form of government to work. This gets me out of the nebulous epithet of "Fascism" since that term covers mutually contradictory teachings such as Mussolini's simple nationalism (not anti-Semitic to begin with), Hitler's racist ideology and Franco's extreme Catholic bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Top