Bashar Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I admit the liberal-capitalist era has brought significant accomplishments, but the contribution of state interference to those accomplishments is denied (or at least completely underplayed) by neoliberal ideology. The success of neoliberal ideology therefore leads to the failure of neoliberalism, or at least failure as somebody who isn't a sociopath would define it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm not trying to have it both ways but nor am I interested in you're false dichotomy. You say I'm taking a very black and white view of things, but then you're the one who has presented this dichotomy. Â It's your. Â I'm not sure what you're on about here, and I suspect you don't either. Thesaurus-swallowing sentences aside, what dichotomy am I presenting? All I'm saying is that, when critiquing the system under which we live (the Western democractic, capitalist system, call it what you will) you can't pick and choose which bits of its history to credit it with. The "state and government" interference you talk about is part of the same system. Indeed, there are very few actual examples of a modern society run independently of the emerging global market system, hence me mentioning USSR and Cuba. Â The really interesting one for me is Russia. Had the provisional government that took power in the February 1917 revolution not been overthrown by the Bolsheviks, and Russia had developed into a Western-style democracy trading openly with other countries, I suspect we'd all be talking Russian now. Think of what they could have accomplished with their huge natural and economic resources during the 20th Century? Something similar to what China is now beginning to realise. Instead, the completely insane, ideologically driven Communist regime ran the country in a sort of suspended animation state for 70 years, constantly destroying or setting back its economic development through its endless experiments in communal/state controlled systems, and generally killed millions of workers that would otherwise have been productive members of society. Â As Vamp said above, our system, as imperfect as it is, will last until someone comes up with a system which actually works better. So far, no dice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) I'm not trying to have it both ways but nor am I interested in you're false dichotomy. You say I'm taking a very black and white view of things, but then you're the one who has presented this dichotomy.  It's your.  I'm not sure what you're on about here, and I suspect you don't either. Thesaurus-swallowing sentences aside  Yeah I basically lost interest in anything you had to say at that point.  Yes, the government interference is part of the system - it's just not part of the ideology. And as the ideology slowly but surely eliminates the government interference from the operation of our society, so the systems collapses. The system doesn't continue, it gets replaced. It's a very simple point really. If you don't get it, that's cool and all, but you might want to entertain the idea that there are people who have thought this stuff through a little more than you.  The only state in recent history to operate without significant government interference is Somalia. I'd rather live in Cuba than Somalia, but its an academic point really. I'm not a communist sympathiser. The fact that Russia has been so extensively brought up illustrates exactly the reason that liberal ideology triumphs over social democracy and thus destroys the (broadly) successful mixed economy. You even suggest that liberal ideology is vaguely flawed, and you get called a communist. That's the basic problem, in a nutshell. Edited March 5, 2012 by Bashar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 John Harris is more eloquent than me:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...st-common-sense  If you haven't read Sir Ian Blair's Guardian article endorsing plans to privatise many of the functions of the police, you ought to. It reflects two iron rules of the relentless drive to outsource and marketise the parts of the state that have so far been left alone: first, that mindboggling policy extremes tend to be recast as matters of simple common sense; and second, that nothing suits those who would dissolve the barrier between state and market like a crisis, which is the essence of what Naomi Klein famously called the Shock Doctrine. I am not accusing Blair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) I'm not trying to have it both ways but nor am I interested in you're false dichotomy. You say I'm taking a very black and white view of things, but then you're the one who has presented this dichotomy.  It's your.  I'm not sure what you're on about here, and I suspect you don't either. Thesaurus-swallowing sentences aside  Yeah I basically lost interest in anything you had to say at that point.  And I'll stop debating with you after this towel-throwing as well.  I was trying to be nice and allow you to discuss in a civilized manner, but you're displaying signs of being a loon. Underlying your point, I suspect, is a great big dollop of conspiracy-theory paranoia about "them" working to undermine society and turn the world into some sort of global-elite driven superstate. I expect you'll use the word "sheeple" at some point too. You're using the term "ideology" the same way people use the term "Bildesburg".  John Harris is more eloquent than me:  That's the first sensible thing you've said. Edited March 5, 2012 by Loki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 5, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 5, 2012 Yeah.. I think you've just cemented the idea that you don't understand what he's saying Loki. I don't even know where you're reading 'conspiracy theory' from anything he's saying and you don't seem to understand what the word ideology even means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm not trying to have it both ways but nor am I interested in you're false dichotomy. You say I'm taking a very black and white view of things, but then you're the one who has presented this dichotomy.  It's your.  I'm not sure what you're on about here, and I suspect you don't either. Thesaurus-swallowing sentences aside  Yeah I basically lost interest in anything you had to say at that point.  And I'll stop debating with you after this towel-throwing as well.  I was trying to be nice and allow you to discuss in a civilized manner, but you're displaying signs of being a loon. Underlying your point, I suspect, is a great big dollop of conspiracy-theory paranoia about "them" working to undermine society and turn the world into some sort of global-elite driven superstate. I expect you'll use the word "sheeple" at some point too. You're using the term "ideology" the same way people use the term "Bildesburg".  And when being accused of being a communist doesn't stick, you get called a conspiracy theorist. Lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Yeah.. I think you've just cemented the idea that you don't understand what he's saying Loki. I don't even know where you're reading 'conspiracy theory' from anything he's saying and you don't seem to understand what the word ideology even means. Â Sure I do, I'm just confused as to how he's using it. He seems to be suggesting that there's a dominant liberal ideology that is trying to force out the role of the government in world politics; at least I think that's what he's saying. Originally, he was suggesting that this ideology had failed. Unless he's using "liberal" in the pejorative, US Rebublican sense of the word, that seems unlikely. For me, liberalism is essentially the advancement of free, unencumbered human rights/religious freedom/ democracy. Our society is a combination of a democracy founded on liberalism, and a capitalist economy. The two may pull against each other, and they don't constitute an attack on the concept of the state, as far as I can see. Â Now, I don't have a degree in political science or anything, but I'm a pretty bright chap. If you'd like to correct me, Chest, please do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The liberal tradition is alive as propaganda, it's completely dead as a serious grown-up ideology.  But I'm not really interested in debating with you after that ludicrous outburst  Our society is a combination of a democracy founded on liberalism, and a capitalist economy  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm actually happy to debate this with you, but you need to stop being a weirdo about it. You might make more sense if you stopped trying to be patronising at the same time. Fair enough if you're not a conspiracy nut, but for example I don't think its sociopathic to not think that society has failed. Â From your last LOL I assume you disagree that our society is either 1) a democracy, 2) essentially liberal or 3) a capitalist economy. Perhaps you could explain which one, in your opinion, is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted March 5, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 5, 2012 But I'm not really interested in debating with you after that ludicrous outburst  Hey everybody, Alan Hill's back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm actually happy to debate this with you, but you need to stop being a weirdo about it. You might make more sense if you stopped trying to be patronising at the same time. Fair enough if you're not a conspiracy nut, but for example I don't think its sociopathic to not think that society has failed. From your last LOL I assume you disagree that our society is either 1) a democracy, 2) essentially liberal or 3) a capitalist economy. Perhaps you could explain which one, in your opinion, is wrong.  Loki, if you stop throwing epithets around like 'weirdo', 'loon' &c then I will discuss the matter sensibly. My wish is not to be patronising but when you come out with stuff like 'I don't see your point, so you must not have one' and call me communist, a conspiracy theorist and what not - it's asking rather a lot of me not to at the very least patronise you in response. When you act like a grown up, I will treat you like one.  Equally, if you go back and answer what your belief in the enduring stability of 'liberal-capitalist-democracy' is based on - then I will answer yours.  Or don't. It's cool, really.  Yeah Stuart Millard, back for a Legends Run. I was back when I called you on slandering the recently deceased the other day too. I'm waiting for evidence of my bro hanging around foot fetish websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 But I'm not really interested in debating with you after that ludicrous outburst  Hey everybody, Alan Hill's back!  Ah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted March 5, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm waiting for evidence of my bro hanging around foot fetish websites. Â I've never said anything of the sort. stingersplash is our foot guy. Â Yeah, we have a foot guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 5, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Yeah Stuart Millard, back for a Legends Run. I was back when I called you on slandering the recently deceased the other day too. I'm waiting for evidence of my bro hanging around foot fetish websites. Â Â Posts that old don't exist anymore. But I remember it happening also. Not foot fetish specifically.. but some kind of fetish website. Him getting caught out was funny, because of his general intolerance. Edited March 5, 2012 by Chest Rockwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts