Globalisation & Neoliberalism

[Peppino Impastato]

That's also assuming the previous builders and current maintenance squad have a clue what they're doing too.  For large swathes of the population their lives are getting worse so they obviously don't.   What ad fib is really holding up, as some mystical unattainable truth that means the ills of society can't be cured therefore the plebs can simply such it up' (really reflecting his own hatred of the poor rather than any policy issues) is simply radical and effective tax reform.   Something offered by sanders incidentally. 

[ayrmad]

6 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

That's also assuming the previous builders and current maintenance squad have a clue what they're doing too.  For large swathes of the population their lives are getting worse so they obviously don't.   What ad fib is really holding up, as some mystical unattainable truth that means the ills of society can't be cured therefore the plebs can simply such it up' (really reflecting his own hatred of the poor rather than any policy issues) is simply radical and effective tax reform.   Something offered by sanders incidentally. 

A Trump voter stated that he could never vote for Clinton, he didn't know if he'd voted for a dream or a nightmare but was willing to suck it and see.

AdLib thinks a person like him should just suck it up because Trump hasn't outlined any concrete plans for the future, I prefer to ask how fucking bad is the status quo for some of these people when they're willing to vote for what could become a nightmare.

AdLib has continually shown a lack of empathy for people at the bottom of the dung heap, not exactly a ringing endorsement for someone looking to shape the future for similar people here, then again he's so far up his own arse that he thinks empathy and sympathy are the exact same thing.

[renton]

If you define Neoliberalism as the triumph of uncontrolled markets, where financial speculation is good, where inequality is an essential driving force and where the state is small and unable to intervene, then it becomes a class based strategy. The main tenent of neoliberalism then, is the breaking of organised labour's bargaining power, it's ability to influence market prices through appreciation of it's role in production. It can be seperated from Globalisation, then a process that could act for both left and right, if done correctly (after all, the early socialists did talk of international socialism, modern Globalisation is simply the imposition of the right's economic vision, rather than the left)

I think what will kill Neoliberalism is a combination of technology, the information economy and ultimately climate change, which will in turn break the link between the cost of production of something and it's market price as well as ultimately restricting the growth of markets. In digital products, we are already at the point where the cost of production beyond the prototype has dwindled to zero (cntrl+C, cntrl +V) and the growth of rapid prototyping techniques such as 3D printing threatens to do the same for many tangible items. Increased automation will drive the same processes: In many semiconductor fabs we've moved past constantly manned production lines to 'lights off' production, where there is little to no human intervention in the process: The entire concept of 'work' as a necessary endevour for the majority of the population will one day be under threat. The information economy, meanwhile has already begun to break down neoliberal structures: Something like Wikipedia represents one of the most successful and purest collectivist enterprises yet imagined, a digital commons that aggregates vast tracts of information and is tended to by thousands of users for no fiscal or tangible reward outside a sense of satisfaction and community spirit. Then you have Google, a modern monopoly acting in complete defiance of neoliberal gravity.

Finally, climate change will act to restrict neoliberalism, as it will fundamentally alter the act of consumption of raw materials. Renewable energy sources, by their very nature do not consume resources on the same scale as fossil fuels. In turn they act best in a distributed network, and can be co-opted at a community level, giving and taking from smart grids rather than as centralised, privatised energy suppliers. The inability to grow new markets inexhaustibly will also act against neoliberalism as resources become more scarce, and climate change will inevitably require statist intervention in terms of protecting populaces from the gross effects of climate change.

Obviously I'm probably wrong about the whole thing, but it seems to me that social, economic and political revolutions follow technical ones. As sure as the first tools revolutionised how apes hunted (societally and ultimately physiologically) We are in the midst of two revolutions, a communications/information one, and an energy one. Both must eventually alter how society is organised.

[ayrmad]

 

[strichener]

9 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

If democracy is a system by which well-meaning fools have to promise unicorns to beat duplicitous bigots promising leprechauns instead of serving up actual real-world choices, count me out and let us ape Singapore and be done with it.

Changed your tune, I thought politicians lying was to be expected.

[John Lambies Doos]

Wid

Pics of his mum or gtf

[ayrmad]

23 minutes ago, strichener said:

Changed your tune, I thought politicians lying was to be expected.

He had to say that, he was after all whoring himself around places like Barrhead telling folk "I feels your pain", "I know what you mean", "wee Willie is great" etc.

[jessmagic]

20 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

When Labour abandoned economic leftism for an exclusive focus on cultural leftism working people suddenly became the problem.

Great point.

Remember being at uni and all the lefty discussions were about things such as fair trade, organic produce and climate change (yes it is an important issue but might not need to be at the top of the list) instead of the actual inequalities and poverty which clearly exist within Scottish society.

Cultural airy fairy leftism replaced proper left wing ideals such as economic inequality and poor standards of education and attainment etc. etc. etc.

[invergowrie arab]

13 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

1. Then they are under a moral obligation to defend neoliberal candidates against fascists, with enthusiasm. Something far too many of them singularly fail to do.

2. There isn't a way to make it work. Democracy itself has failed. The problem is not that white working class people have not had enough of a voice. It is that they don't like the idea that brown working class people should have a voice too. That's literally what this comes down to. They reject the most basic of premises of democracy. Democracy cannot work if the voters are not themselves democratic.

3. But it is a reason to disregard their arguments. Sometimes we just have to force people to suck it up.

My objective is not to appease illiberal people because they're concerns are legitimate or they make poor decisions for themselves.

It's to find a way of protecting the minorities who will be harmed by those illiberal movements.

The last 6 months and the foreseeable future is the direct result of telling people to suck it up.

[Ad Lib]

13 hours ago, ayrmad said:

Would you're requirements be as stringent if the stars were your ceiling?

Yes. Because living in a fire is a short prospect.

[Ad Lib]

6 hours ago, ayrmad said:

A Trump voter stated that he could never vote for Clinton, he didn't know if he'd voted for a dream or a nightmare but was willing to suck it and see.

AdLib thinks a person like him should just suck it up because Trump hasn't outlined any concrete plans for the future, I prefer to ask how fucking bad is the status quo for some of these people when they're willing to vote for what could become a nightmare.

AdLib has continually shown a lack of empathy for people at the bottom of the dung heap, not exactly a ringing endorsement for someone looking to shape the future for similar people here, then again he's so far up his own arse that he thinks empathy and sympathy are the exact same thing.

We know what the status quo provides. It might be shit, but it's there. Bricks and mortar.

Being willing to vote for a nightmare is evidence of psychopathy.

[Peppino Impastato]

False equivalence from the lying troll.  As ever.  Go back to sneering at poor people and sackingup to britnats Iit suits you best. 

[Ad Lib]

6 hours ago, renton said:

If you define Neoliberalism as the triumph of uncontrolled markets, where financial speculation is good, where inequality is an essential driving force and where the state is small and unable to intervene, then it becomes a class based strategy. The main tenent of neoliberalism then, is the breaking of organised labour's bargaining power, it's ability to influence market prices through appreciation of it's role in production. It can be seperated from Globalisation, then a process that could act for both left and right, if done correctly (after all, the early socialists did talk of international socialism, modern Globalisation is simply the imposition of the right's economic vision, rather than the left)

And if you define a dog as a cat and a bark as a moo then a cat moos.

This is not the worldview of the vast majority of people. Hillary Clinton does not even remotely ascribe to the worldview you have described. That is where this argument breaks down.

6 hours ago, renton said:

I think what will kill Neoliberalism is a combination of technology, the information economy and ultimately climate change, which will in turn break the link between the cost of production of something and it's market price as well as ultimately restricting the growth of markets. In digital products, we are already at the point where the cost of production beyond the prototype has dwindled to zero (cntrl+C, cntrl +V) and the growth of rapid prototyping techniques such as 3D printing threatens to do the same for many tangible items. Increased automation will drive the same processes: In many semiconductor fabs we've moved past constantly manned production lines to 'lights off' production, where there is little to no human intervention in the process: The entire concept of 'work' as a necessary endevour for the majority of the population will one day be under threat. The information economy, meanwhile has already begun to break down neoliberal structures: Something like Wikipedia represents one of the most successful and purest collectivist enterprises yet imagined, a digital commons that aggregates vast tracts of information and is tended to by thousands of users for no fiscal or tangible reward outside a sense of satisfaction and community spirit. Then you have Google, a modern monopoly acting in complete defiance of neoliberal gravity.

The vast majority of people you are tarring as neoliberal, who accept almost none of your definition of neoliberalism as what the world should be like, also celebrate the internet, Wikipedia and 3D printing. They are successes of globalisation and free markets; not failures. The people who are voting against all this change are luddite morons who resent the fact that under any economic system they are not as good as a robot, and who want to uninvent Chinese manufacturing.

The bottom line is that the current economic system has utterly transformed the lives of billions of people at the bottom. Paddyfields to iPhones. That's literally what's at stake here. White working class people resent the fact that they can't piggy-back off other people's systematic oppression anymore because globalisation has freed them.

 

6 hours ago, renton said:

Finally, climate change will act to restrict neoliberalism, as it will fundamentally alter the act of consumption of raw materials. Renewable energy sources, by their very nature do not consume resources on the same scale as fossil fuels. In turn they act best in a distributed network, and can be co-opted at a community level, giving and taking from smart grids rather than as centralised, privatised energy suppliers. The inability to grow new markets inexhaustibly will also act against neoliberalism as resources become more scarce, and climate change will inevitably require statist intervention in terms of protecting populaces from the gross effects of climate change.

Obviously I'm probably wrong about the whole thing, but it seems to me that social, economic and political revolutions follow technical ones. As sure as the first tools revolutionised how apes hunted (societally and ultimately physiologically) We are in the midst of two revolutions, a communications/information one, and an energy one. Both must eventually alter how society is organised.

Again, the people voting for Trump and Brexit are climate change deniers. They aren't fed-up of consumption; they're fed-up of other people getting to consume as much as them for once.

The state is physically incapable of fixing these problems. That's what gave rise to neoliberalism in the first place. The state was trying and failing to contain global market forces, and its efforts to do it were actively damaging the most disadvantaged. It was alienating them from new skills by propping up failed labour-intensive industries. It was allowing them to pretend that their model of community was fine and sustainable when it wasn't, isn't and has to die.

That is the brutal reality.

[John Lambies Doos]

We know what the status quo provides. It might be shit, but it's there. Bricks and mortar.

Being willing to vote for a nightmare is evidence of psychopathy.

You're so fukin negative

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

You're so fukin negative

 

So's reality. Suck it up.

[Peppino Impastato]

Their model of community 'had to die' but no effort made to mitigate the effects of that, diversify, help retrain,  modify tax codes.  Fibers believes the poor should just suck Iit up then gets angry when they vote for any alternative to this.   What a bellend.   Can you believe this clown so full of hatred for other people cause none of them like him thinks politics and the diplomatic service is for Him?   Comical. 

[Peppino Impastato]

Yeah well trump is president and five trillion times more relevant politically than you could ever be in a thousand lifetimes. Suck that up too chump.  And it's clowns like you that caused it.

[Ad Lib]

4 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Their model of community 'had to die' but no effort made to mitigate the effects of that, diversify, help retrain,  modify tax codes.  Fibers believes the poor should just suck Iit up then gets angry when they vote for any alternative to this.   What a bellend.   Can you believe this clown so full of hatred for other people cause none of them like him thinks politics and the diplomatic service is for Him?   Comical. 

Yes, because Donald Trump had more of a plan to "mitigate the effects of that, diversify, help retrain, modify tax codes" than Hillary Clinton.

You fucking chump.

[John Lambies Doos]

So's reality. Suck it up.

If that's the mundane you are willing to accept... then I guess it is

[Peppino Impastato]

Who said he did moron, i said he offered an alternative real or imagined and people grabbed it.  I also said a similar movement of actual substance could have similar success,  you said such positive change is impossible and the poor in the west should accept their lot and Suck it up.  You're a lying, trolling, utter scumbag.