|March 30th, 2015||#1|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Neoliberalism as Economic Pornography
WEEKEND EDITION MARCH 27-29, 2015
A Predatory Ideology
Neoliberalism as Economic Pornography
by ROB URIE
Two weeks after a former Obama administration official who helped engineer the bailout of General Motors sought a seat on GM’s Board of Directors to force an $8 billion share buyback to benefit hedge funds, General Motors joined the also bailed out Ford Motor Company to announce the intention to add yet one lower paid tier to the existing two-tiered wage structure. Citing overseas ‘competition,’ General Motors executives are using $8 billion in retained earnings to raise the value of company shares owned by hedge funds and to benefit themselves directly. The role of the Obama administration in retaining the two-tiered wage structure when bailing out General Motors and in sending one of its former members to ‘harvest’ the residual should raise fundamental questions about the intersection of politics and economics?
This intersection is supported by the economic theology of neoliberalism now some decades embedded into the major institutions of the West. Through its reduction of the breadth of human experience to the dull economism of market relations, neoliberalism most closely resembles economic pornography. A defining characteristic is de-contextualization for re-contextualization, removal from the breadth and depth of human relations to posit family, friends, neighbors and community as consumers to be conned, scammed and exploited. And to provide the punchline at the outset: there is nothing brilliant or insightful about the political success of neoliberalism. History is replete with totalizing ideologies that support an existing status quo until their limitations force reclamation of broader possibility.
Graph (1) above: the resurgence of neoliberalism in capitalist theory has none-too-ironically coincided with severely diminished economic performance by metrics preferred by the liberal wing of the capitalist church. Inflation-adjusted GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth has been declining steadily since the neoliberal resurgence began in the 1970s. While historical circumstances, the aftermath of WWII, go far in explaining this performance, of what relevance is history when God is running the economy? As with explaining genocide and slavery as ‘God’s will,’ diminished economic performance is reason for more and ‘purer’ markets for true believers. The question for the left is: which makes more sense, arguing with true believers or getting them out of the way to make peace with the world more broadly considered? Source: St. Louis Fed.
With the American left now nearing a half century in the proverbial wilderness the temptation to point to a brilliant and immutable opposition is rising. Ignoring for the moment the tendency toward ideological tribalism, a question worth asking: is the problem an absence of influence over the existing order or is it having a wholly different conception of what the world could be? From inside the existing order political participation is totalizing— participation by degree has no bearing, it is all de facto consent. American citizens who aren’t politically active are considered citizens nevertheless, by internal measures the best citizens among us. The question then isn’t how the left is internally defined, but rather how it is defined through the residual of possibility that stands outside of the existing order.
The temptation to assign a totalizing brilliance to modern capitalism, to the systematic instantiation of the corporate model of neoliberalism ever further into the ‘public’ and ‘private’ realms, confuses local with global intelligence. By analogy, the Catholic Church spent two millennia fitting the inconvenient facts of existence into the idea of God’s will. The capitalist path of secularizing this God as ‘external’ intelligence is: God > Nature > Markets, with markets representing an ‘external’ totalizing intelligence. The question for the left, strategy aside: is accedence to this secular god intellectually and theoretically coherent or is it a sociological response to deeply held nonsense? The strategic question is: from the outside of this totalizing logic should the focus be on changing minds or changing circumstances?
The success of neoliberals in imposing their vision on ever greater parts of the world can be attributed to strategic aforethought, but the strategy itself is quite old. Modern Republicans have understood the political benefits of deep embedding of sympathetic bureaucrats along with patronage through loyal networks for some decades now— George H.W. Bush got his son appointed to the Presidency a dozen years before the fact through his Supreme Court appointments. In The German Dictatorship Karl Bracher details the years senior Nazis spent embedding sympathetic bureaucrats and operatives across Western Europe prior to the rise of the Third Reich. In The Crisis of the German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich George Mosse traces the origins of this political long game back to the Roman Empire.
Graph (2) above: the mythology that the 1970s was a decade of economic catastrophe is widely off the mark. As Graph (1) above illustrates, as measured by Real GDP growth, economic performance in the 1970s was significantly stronger than that of the last one-and-one-half decades in the U.S. What did suffer, as illustrated in Graph (2) above, is Net Worth relative to economic production, largely a measure of how much economic production is converted to ‘savings’ by the very rich. By this measure, which can be largely explained by fluctuating financial asset prices, the 1970s were a disaster. Neoliberalism rose as of political and economic force in conjunction with the financialization of Western economies. Since the mid-1990s the rise in Net Worth has outpaced economic production due to financial asset price gains. Source: St. Louis Fed.
Does ideology ‘cause’ political economy or does political economy facilitate the social apologetics that support it? The absence of arguments from the left in mainstream discourse coincident with the ascendance of radical capitalism over the last forty years is evidence for the latter. This causal direction was well-covered by Antonio Gramsci some decades past. It was without public expression of irony that free-marketeer Ronald Reagan had the most protectionist economic policies in modern history. The anarcho-libertarianism of Newt Gingrich was likewise skin deep— both Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gingrich used government as a patronage system for their own political ends. The ‘do as I say, not as I do’ tendencies of neoliberalism point to the ruling class whimsy driving it.
As a branch of the scientific and academic practices of modernity, economics shares the conceit, with varying degrees of plausibility, of intellectual and theoretical ‘progress.’ As a process individuated from other disciplines and interconnected social outcomes by its practitioners, the question of why history better explains long term economic performance (Graph (1) above) than shifting economic theories has bearing. Academic theorist Philip Mirowski follows the (Michel) Foucauldian / (Thomas) Kuhnian idea of structural break— that neoliberalism represents a fundamental break from earlier capitalist theory. While I am highly sympathetic to the inclination toward break, capitalism has been totalizing ideology since its inception through its basis in Cartesian dualism.
At the level of theory, the God > Nature > Markets conception of ‘nature’ as an external intelligence precedes even Adam Smith. As Smith does, readers can leave the deistic migration at the level of ‘nature’ without loss of further inference to markets.
From Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Part IV, paragraph 9.
When Philip Mirowski (link above) argues that neoliberalism is an amalgamation of Austrian and American social philosophy as it has developed since the 1940s, left unreported is the residual of social possibility— it isn’t an amalgam of Tunisian and Ugandan social philosophy— the point being that the schools are not randomly associated. Austrian economists, including Friedrich Hayak, were imported by dispossessed American plutocrats in the 1940s and 1950s to resurrect primitive capitalist ideology. Mr. Hayek is one of the more interesting examples— he understood and articulated the social consequences of capitalist production, including pollution, until he was paid not to by Fred Koch, father of his litigious, dystopian Koch Brothers. This is to suggest that modern neoliberalism was considered primitive even by committed capitalist ideologues of past decades.
This history is important because the argument of a structural break between the pre-Keynesian orthodoxy that preceded the ‘bastard’ Keynesian of the New Deal and neoliberalism requires a parsing of history that has alternative explanation. Irrespective of the value one assigns to science, its base frame is dualistic, a relationship of observer to observed. In territory reportedly well covered by Mr. Mirowski; in the mid-late nineteenth century economists William Stanley Jevons and Leon Walras co-opted physics models and backed their economic theories into them. The premise that economic ‘systems’ are analogous to physical systems necessarily preceded the co-optation. These models are metaphors for the physical / economic processes they are claimed to represent; they proceed from a metaphorical ‘inside’ that in theory represents aspects of an external world.
This conception of economics as a natural system follows the God > Nature deistic migration of Western modernity. Much as with the Physiocrat idea of a ‘natural order’ that preceded Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Jevons and Walras’ deference to a rule-based ‘natural’ system of economics has economic actors acting apart from an externally given system. Adding paradox to neoliberal theory is that markets are the organizing ‘structure’ that is itself organized from without. By analogy, within the dualistic frame people aren’t gravity, there are people and there is gravity. And by extension, people aren’t nature, there are people and there is nature. Of note is that this dualism leaves no place for people— we are eternally ‘inside’ some nebulous space apart from the world.
Herein lies the paradox, as an ‘external’ organizing force, or as Mr. Mirowski has it, an information processing system, neoliberal markets are external to human affairs. Reorganizing social relations to facilitate this external intelligence either assumes perfect knowledge of it or social reorganization premised on it is ludicrous on its face. What is assumed is specific form and content of the information that markets process that the breadth of human experience renders reductive to the point of leaving an economic pornographer in charge of social organization. Creative thoughts / acts are achieved using intelligence of form and content that bears no relation to the concept of economistic information processing. The conceptual circle from people to markets back to people is empty tautology, not profound insight.
While Adam Smith and the capitalist economists who followed him maintained different realms of state and market, implausibly so as Marx and Lenin, had it, once the idea of a benevolent external intelligence is granted the distinction appears arbitrary. If the state exists to serve ruling class interests, admittedly a crude formulation of the Marxist / Leninist explanation of the capitalist state, then the state serves an economic role— its role in participatory politics is largely illusory. Conversely, if markets ‘work’ in the realm of the economic, why wouldn’t they work in the realm of the political? The answer back that they don’t, at least not as advertised (see Graph (1) above), points to the ethereal nature of totalizing ideology. A fundamental flaw of neoliberalism is that its ‘facts’ in terms of social outcomes can’t be forever held at bay.
In the 1950s and 1960s ‘rocket scientists’ were considered the zenith of human intelligence because they could launch missiles from one location and have them land in another. That many of the best rocket scientists had been committed Nazis before they were committed to developing nuclear weapons for the U.S. draws a circle around this conception of intelligence. Before financial markets went awry in 2008 bankers and financial engineers were considered the ‘best and brightest’ for participating in what in hindsight was the creation of very narrowly distributed prosperity. The Department of Justice report on the use of the Municipal government in Ferguson, Missouri as a revenue center is testament to the ‘brilliance’ of neoliberalism. A group of slimy white guys in suits used embedded history to claim privileges for themselves at the expense of the people they claim to govern.
Neoliberalism is the metaphorical equivalent of ‘shitting’ pornography, reduction of the structure and purpose of human existence to endless images of people shitting on one another. From within this worldview alternatives are limited to other pornographic genres. The irony of the ‘envy’ critique of socialist and communist alternatives is that they predominantly come from people whose conception of social possibility is limited to people endlessly shitting on one another. What is depressing about this worldview and its deep instantiation is that young people don’t have the historical memory and life experience to put it in perspective. In this sense neoliberalism is conceptually predatory. But ultimately it is poorly conceived— as the citizens of Ferguson are demonstrating, you can ‘legally’ shit on people for a while, but not forever. And the narrowness of the neoliberal vision leaves room for social possibility, for intelligence that isn’t limited to excrement as the sole ‘currency’ of social relations.
|March 30th, 2015||#3|
Diversity = White Genocide
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
That typical blame Reagan chart leaves out the experience of living through the seventies. This is necessary because it gives you ten years distance from the guilty party, Johnson, the ultimate liberal. 73-79 were not years of prosperity. You can't talk about stagnating wages without factoring in the dire impact of immigration. And feminism as much as economic necessity helped convince women to enter or remain in the workforce, which also lowered wages.
|March 31st, 2015||#5|
Join Date: Mar 2007
The theory is: technological advances--plus the ability to flee to offshore production in areas busted open by the Vietnam War--led to the abandonment of American workers, even America itself. To fill the gap between middle-class expectations and declining wages, average people went bananas. They worked longer hours and worked harder. (Thus the increase in productivity, shown on the chart.) Mom went to work, brown squat monsters were imported and employed by the million to backfill the low-pay jobs (that turned to shit, because second-generation mud immigrants end up as welfare cases), credit boomed, bubbles were blown and burst in rapid succession. As the chart mentions, it's a losing battle. Especially borrowing money.
The overall goal is to have a tiny sliver of jew trillionaires on top, and a vast mud mess of poor, hard-working, deluded wage/debt slaves (and literal slaves) below. The Dark Ages with electricity. The masters will monitor every move, word, and thought of the slaves for subversion, and kill, imprison, or starve them with impunity.
Now stop reading this evil website and get back to work, boy.
No jews, just right
Less talk, more action
Last edited by Sean Gruber; March 31st, 2015 at 11:31 AM.
|March 31st, 2015||#6|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Economic gains made by white workers until the 1980's were a reaction to the increase in living standards in the Soviet Union, IE Cold War propagada. During the 50's and 60's many developing nations were following the Soviet model (like Brazil, etc are following the export-heavy Chinese model today), because it was growing at a rate of 10% a year, so America had to invest in an increase of living standards to make a point in the eyes of the world.
The USSR began to stagnate during the Reagan years due to the ridiculous arms race the latter initiated, the money required to counter America's half a trillion dollar a year "defense" spending pretty much bankrupted the Soviets who didn't have New York city banks to finance their debt. Once it looked like the Soviets were on the brink of bankruptcy and collapse, suddenly the Jewish capitalists started moving towards globalization and an illegal immigrant work force. Reagan was giving tax incentives to multi-nationals to outsource labor, weakened workers unions that were a traditional bulwark against immigration, not to mention his massive amnesty during his presidency that conservative critics of Obama seem to forget. Most of the world thought Kruschev won the kitchen debate until well into the 80's.
Thus, the 90's to now have been the era of neo-liberalism. That's what happens when you have a unipolar world. If the Russians today stick to their geopolitical guns, polarize the world, and start increasing the standard of living of their people, the USA will either undo neo-liberal reforms or collapse. You're already seeing some of the perks of an emerging Russian challenge to ZOG with cheaper gas that is being financed by increases in government investment.
Capitalists won't create national prosperity or behave ethically unless someone puts a gun to their head. Their ideal society is Mexico or Bolivia, with an exclusive white minority and Jewish clique overseeing teeming masses of brown slaves-as it means no political or economic threat to their dynasties. That's the way it has always been.
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona