Neoliberalism has wrecked the planet

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Continued;

* * *

We haven’t really got our minds around it yet, because we’re still in the early stages of it, but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what’s been happening since the early 1990s. The US military’s “disastrous misadventures” in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense. Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been “clear-and-holding” the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other “interventions” conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you’re done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of “emergency” fostered, and paranoia about “the threat of extremism” propagated by the corporate media.

I’m not suggesting there’s a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their shiny black top hats planning all of this. I’m talking about systemic development, which is a little more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we’re used to perceiving historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological systems … or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition. What it has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values. None of these insurgencies will be successful.

Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly “normal.” The scourge of “extremism” and “terrorism” will persist, as will the general atmosphere of “emergency.” There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.

This won’t happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren’t ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we’re expecting, or being trained to expect by the corporate media. Look, I’ll give you a dollar if it turns out I’m wrong, and the Russians, terrorists, white supremacists, and other “extremists” do bring down “democracy” and launch their Islamic, white supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear … tomorrow belongs to the Corporatocracy.

Join the debate on Facebook

More articles by:CJ HOPKINS
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
Counterpunch is a propaganda website to push the right wing agenda. Whatever comes from there is suspect.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
So where's the Democratic Party's proposal to protect Union organization?

How about Progressive taxation of rich corporations and individuals?

Where's their opposition to a massive military buildup in a time of peace, even while America is already spending more than the next ten biggest milliary budgets combined?

I'd even settle for unified opposition to relaxing banking regulations to help stave off the next crisis?

But no.

Yet the ballwashers keep talking about the criminal organisation known the the Democratic Party like they're somehow 'left' of anything. They're surely not effective nor do voters take them seriously, considering how they're the minority party in the Senate, the House, Statehouses, governorships and of course the White House. That's a pretty solid record of abject failure. Maybe it really IS their fault? After all, they only represent the interests of their donors, less than 10% of their self described constituency.

Sounds like a firmly neoliberal organization. Why don't they just admit it and join the Republicans? The only reason I can think of is that the privileged class on the required list of DCCC consultants enjoys the money they make too much to want to change anything.

Nancy Pelosi is on record as saying the Democrats don't need to change anything. As long as she's a successful fundraiser, why bother?
 

travisw

Well-Known Member
So where's the Democratic Party's proposal to protect Union organization?

I'd even settle for unified opposition to relaxing banking regulations to help stave off the next crisis?

But no.

Yet the ballwashers
You might try a little more google and a little less pompous asshole.

The Workplace Action for a Growing Economy Act of 2017

Creates penalties to prevent violations of workers’ rights to join unions or engage in collective action. The WAGE Act guarantees penalties equal to twice the amount of an employee’s backpay, plus fines up to $50,000, for each violation resulting in discharge or serious economic harm.

http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/WAGE Act Fact Sheet.pdf

 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
You might try a little more google and a little less pompous asshole.

The Workplace Action for a Growing Economy Act of 2017

Creates penalties to prevent violations of workers’ rights to join unions or engage in collective action. The WAGE Act guarantees penalties equal to twice the amount of an employee’s backpay, plus fines up to $50,000, for each violation resulting in discharge or serious economic harm.

http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/WAGE Act Fact Sheet.pdf

Take your own advice.

That's one, there was a list you (conveniently) ignored.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
A longish read on why the terms 'balanced Federal budget', 'Federal budget deficit' and 'deficit spending' make no sense whatsoever;

Part One;
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/diagrams-dollars-modern-money-illustrated-part-1.html

Part Two;
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/diagrams-dollars-modern-money-illustrated-part-2.html

Put simply, the amount of money the Federal government can put into circulation isn't limited by taxes or anything else; it's limited by the total resources available to our society. If the government puts too much money into the system, what we get is inflation. The idea of a 'balanced budget' or worse, a 'budget surplus' is dangerous because it starves our economy of capital.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Neoliberalism has taken control of climate change policy. As this insider relates, that means we humans are most thoroughly fucked;

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/6mlvi2/i_went_to_the_ny_and_paris_climate_conferences_in/

New York magazine’s climate change article has generated a lot of response, much of it largely critical of the supposedly “alarmist” tone, so I want to give my perspective as someone who has had a glimpse of what “climate action” currently looks like. And it’s a mea culpa of sorts.

I went to the New York and Paris climate change conferences (COP, in the insider jargon) in an official capacity working on policy, specifically financial policy as part of the response to climate change. I went to many other conferences, I participated in panel discussions, met with politicians, scientists, CEOs.

I’d been in this role for a few years and the most depressing thing was this: as an organisation representing the financial sector we’d been too successful. So that by the time of the Paris agreement a significant portion of the efforts, from state and non-state actors, revolved around mobilising business to provide the necessary investment to tackle climate change. State actors were relegated to generators of “the necessary conditions” to stimulate investment. A line I helped push really hard, because I believed it.

If you look at the text of the Paris agreement, the substance of it, it packages climate action within the pre-existing framework of neo-liberal economic policy e.g. how can trade, globalisation, consumerism, work towards the 2 degree goal? How can we ensure that pension funds, investment funds, banks continue to make lots of money and while doing so can be nudged to contribute to the solution. The question was never asked: are these non-state financial actors the problem? Even fossil fuel companies, unarguably the problem, were wholeheartedly invited to contribute to solving the problem. I went to a meeting with the UK’s secretary of state for climate change at the time (Ed Davey) where the Shell representatives were eagerly asked how they could help and future bi-lateral meetings agreed. BP, Total, Statoil and others were feted for their joint initiative to tackle climate change. It was just words, PR. By focusing on how the financial sector (even the fossil sector) could help solve climate change, we had given politicians the ideal playing conditions. They could solve this by operating largely within their status quo comfort zone. No one had to lose, least of all business and investors. After all their efforts in creating a globalised market place (the neo-liberal feel-good narrative) and spreading wealth around the world, they could be the heroes again! It was a story all could agree on and feel good about. A solution that fit the pre-existing paradigm? Wow, why didn’t we think of it before.

It dawned on me (and yes, it had to dawn, I believed in the system, believed it was essentially working toward the good), that attempting to tackle the problem within the pre-existing economic structures was naivety and wishful thinking of the highest order. It necessarily involves a suspension of disbelief: what caused the problem can solve it. Climate change policy in 2017 is a complete failure of imagination. From my reading of the history, in the 70s, around Limits to Growth and the initial awareness of the problem, there was actually significant imagination with regards to methods to tackle it. Even Al Gore’s early efforts were not entirely in hock to business. That has died, subsumed by a globalised capitalist system run amok. A system we are all, unfortunately, locked into. The end of fossil fuel capitalism is the only way we have a chance of limiting warming to levels which could support a large, global civilisation. And that can’t be sold as policy.

So the New York magazine article was not too alarmist. Because non-alarmism is failing, and this complacency is dooming us. The people in charge are running around fiddling with business as usual while the world burns and the ice melts. Last week the EU and Japan signed a new free trade deal to grow exports in many of the worst offending industries, especially agriculture and manufacturing. But exports can’t grow without growth of transport emissions, so how can this ever be compatible with Paris? It can’t. But where was the strong voice arguing against it and for the climate? Neo-liberalism has taken control of climate policy, because it has taken control of governance. World leaders who all largely subscribe to the inevitable good of growth, of more, can’t be the ones to challenge it. Globalisation as practised by modern nation-states has only produced market-orientated agreements at the global level and not one agreement in the other areas of human interaction – work conditions, taxation, child labour, health. Or climate change. Paris is a market-orientated agreement, and if it’s the best we can do, the world is fucked, and more articles like the New York magazine piece need to tell us so.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Yeah, so what. Are you claiming that none of the people who don't support your savior Bernie and your ridiculous Progress Pouters of America platform don't support making things better here in America? We do, we just don't share your ridiculous views on how to achieve that. First you need to win elections. Just ask Bernie. He will agree. He could have won if he had not lost.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
General Mattis admits the US has no evidence Assad used chemical weapons in Syria;

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5

Oh, really? Then why are we attacking them anyway?

Because we can't be seen to be letting Russia win.

Yay, more war profits for neoliberals.
shouldn't you post this in the novichok thread, so that it will directly follow the post @travisw made about how england intercepted russian spy communications confirming the attack?








REVEALED: The bombshell Russian message intercepted on DAY of Skripal poisonings

On the day of the poisonings, March 4, one was sent from a location near Damascus in Syria to “an official” in Moscow including the phrase ‘the package has been delivered” and saying that two individuals had “made a successful egress”.

This prompted a young Flight Lieutenant to recall a separate message that had been intercepted and discounted on the previous day.

What it said has not been revealed but sources say it became relevant once the Skripals were attacked.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...ian-spy-poisoning-russian-message-intercepted
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Wow Buckwit, try to keep your chemical warfare incidents straight;

This one is about Syria and you know who Mad Dog Mattis is.

Are you high? If so, you didn't grow it.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Neoliberalism has taken control of climate change policy. As this insider relates, that means we humans are most thoroughly fucked;

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/6mlvi2/i_went_to_the_ny_and_paris_climate_conferences_in/

New York magazine’s climate change article has generated a lot of response, much of it largely critical of the supposedly “alarmist” tone, so I want to give my perspective as someone who has had a glimpse of what “climate action” currently looks like. And it’s a mea culpa of sorts.

I went to the New York and Paris climate change conferences (COP, in the insider jargon) in an official capacity working on policy, specifically financial policy as part of the response to climate change. I went to many other conferences, I participated in panel discussions, met with politicians, scientists, CEOs.

I’d been in this role for a few years and the most depressing thing was this: as an organisation representing the financial sector we’d been too successful. So that by the time of the Paris agreement a significant portion of the efforts, from state and non-state actors, revolved around mobilising business to provide the necessary investment to tackle climate change. State actors were relegated to generators of “the necessary conditions” to stimulate investment. A line I helped push really hard, because I believed it.

If you look at the text of the Paris agreement, the substance of it, it packages climate action within the pre-existing framework of neo-liberal economic policy e.g. how can trade, globalisation, consumerism, work towards the 2 degree goal? How can we ensure that pension funds, investment funds, banks continue to make lots of money and while doing so can be nudged to contribute to the solution. The question was never asked: are these non-state financial actors the problem? Even fossil fuel companies, unarguably the problem, were wholeheartedly invited to contribute to solving the problem. I went to a meeting with the UK’s secretary of state for climate change at the time (Ed Davey) where the Shell representatives were eagerly asked how they could help and future bi-lateral meetings agreed. BP, Total, Statoil and others were feted for their joint initiative to tackle climate change. It was just words, PR. By focusing on how the financial sector (even the fossil sector) could help solve climate change, we had given politicians the ideal playing conditions. They could solve this by operating largely within their status quo comfort zone. No one had to lose, least of all business and investors. After all their efforts in creating a globalised market place (the neo-liberal feel-good narrative) and spreading wealth around the world, they could be the heroes again! It was a story all could agree on and feel good about. A solution that fit the pre-existing paradigm? Wow, why didn’t we think of it before.

It dawned on me (and yes, it had to dawn, I believed in the system, believed it was essentially working toward the good), that attempting to tackle the problem within the pre-existing economic structures was naivety and wishful thinking of the highest order. It necessarily involves a suspension of disbelief: what caused the problem can solve it. Climate change policy in 2017 is a complete failure of imagination. From my reading of the history, in the 70s, around Limits to Growth and the initial awareness of the problem, there was actually significant imagination with regards to methods to tackle it. Even Al Gore’s early efforts were not entirely in hock to business. That has died, subsumed by a globalised capitalist system run amok. A system we are all, unfortunately, locked into. The end of fossil fuel capitalism is the only way we have a chance of limiting warming to levels which could support a large, global civilisation. And that can’t be sold as policy.

So the New York magazine article was not too alarmist. Because non-alarmism is failing, and this complacency is dooming us. The people in charge are running around fiddling with business as usual while the world burns and the ice melts. Last week the EU and Japan signed a new free trade deal to grow exports in many of the worst offending industries, especially agriculture and manufacturing. But exports can’t grow without growth of transport emissions, so how can this ever be compatible with Paris? It can’t. But where was the strong voice arguing against it and for the climate? Neo-liberalism has taken control of climate policy, because it has taken control of governance. World leaders who all largely subscribe to the inevitable good of growth, of more, can’t be the ones to challenge it. Globalisation as practised by modern nation-states has only produced market-orientated agreements at the global level and not one agreement in the other areas of human interaction – work conditions, taxation, child labour, health. Or climate change. Paris is a market-orientated agreement, and if it’s the best we can do, the world is fucked, and more articles like the New York magazine piece need to tell us so.
Yep, the people who said give me Bernie or I'll give you Trump were misguided to say the least. Totally agree.
 
Top