We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Discussion point In your experience, dear readers, has any comment you have seen in media, whether mainstream or alternative, that refers to “neo-liberal”, “the one per cent” or “globalisation” accurately described free enterprise, the case for free trade and the advantages of severally-owned property? Because in my experience such terms almost always suggest that the metacontext (a trademarked term of this parish) of the commentator/writer is collectivist/statist to some degree. As an example, I came across someone describing today’s UK as being governed by “neoliberalism”, and was not in the least put off by my pointing out that the State now grabs almost half of UK GDP and regulates a goodly portion of the rest of it.
Here is an article from six years ago from the Institute of Economic Affairs that challenges the idea that there is much that is very “neo-liberal” about today’s UK.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
As far as i can tell, “neo-liberal” can mean pretty much anything you want it to mean.
The term seems to be in the process of being hijacked by Trump supporters, and their European equivalents, to mean people who support free trade and open borders, but are otherwise against the free market in several areas: pro-lockdown, pro-BLM, pro- Great Reset, CAGW alarmists, and so on and so forth.
And they are also against free speech.
Which makes sense to me, because “neo-liberal” policies, as defined in the above paragraph, have something in common: they all favor Big Business (especially businesses exploiting Uighur slave labor) and go against the interests of small businesses and the working and middle classes.
I seem to remember Perry writing about a couple of Frenchmen he had lunch with, or perhaps it was just a few drinks. As i remember, the boss complained about “neo-liberalism” and the subordinate had the guts to tell his boss that he did not know what he was talking about.
I might add to my previous comment that i do not mind if “neo-liberalism” assumes a negative connotation for libertarians; because, after all, Locke and Adam Smith did not call themselves ‘liberal’, but JS Mill did.
Honestly, I think much of the reason for them wishing to talk of neo-liberals, neo-conservatives etc. because the “neo” prefix first came to prominence when talking about “neo-Nazis”, and the second half of that term has leaked evil-soundingness into the first.
Snorri is right to say that many Trump supporters did latch on to the term as a pejorative way to describe Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s style of politics, which is quite a shift from its original meaning, which I’d describe as Thatcherism or Reaganism. A lot of that change was just the standard, because effective, tactic of nicking the rhetoric of your political opponents.
That Kristian Niemietz article was pretty good. (My goodness he looked young in that photo!) One line that particularly struck me was this:
It has been. I suppose there is still some shadow of tax competition between Scotland and the remainder of the UK, but nothing to match the still living – albeit threatened – tradition of virtuous competition between the states of the US.
It was myself & a Czech UN diplomat & his boss, who is a Turkish UN diplomat, and the Czech chap very politely ripped his boss a new one… and yes, it was indeed after quite a few drinks. It happened at Balkon overlooking Istanbul 🤣
Excellent story Perry.
As for “Neo Liberal” and “Neo Liberalism” – these terms were invented by the Marxists and have spread to the establishment generally.
J.P. is correct – they are never used as positive terms.
As for the real systematic corruption – the Credit Money flow to the super rich (the “Cantillon Effect” which shows that credit money expansion benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else) well that is tactfully not talked about.
Instead we get endless LIES (lies, not innocent mistakes, because the people who spread them know them to be false) about how the “Neo Liberal” “Trump tax breaks for the rich” caused the deficit.
Tax revenue from the rich went UP when the tax rate was cut – the “unjust enrichment” is from the Federal Reserve (not from “tax breaks for the rich”).
By the way the worst “tax loophole for the rich” was actually hit by President Trump – the ending (apart for the first ten thousand Dollars of income) of the ability to deduct State and local income tax from income before it is subject to Federal tax.
“But that is a loophole that Donald John Trump used himself – for years”.
Of course he did – as a New York Businessman he used all the loopholes, that is how he knew exactly what they were and could work to abolish them.
That is not a “narrative” the media will present.
As for tax cuts for Corporations – economically the cutting of Corporation Tax rates by President Trump may well have made sense.
But given the, absolutely vile, behaviour of the Corporations (their support of the worst elements they can find – their support for massive Election Rigging, and Censorship, and Cancel Culture, and……) I have come round to a Dr Sean Gabb, or at least Mr Ed, view of the Corporations.
Just take off and nuke them from orbit – it is the only way to be sure.
“Ah, but Paul – RT (Max Keiser and co) talk about the Cantillon Effect”.
Well yes they can talk about the Cantillon Effect – Mr Putin and his associates do not depend on Credit Money and the clever manipulations of the national debt (and corporate debt) to make themselves rich.
They control NATURAL RESOURCES – Russia is, as it has been for centuries, the “Treasure House of Nations” in terns of Natural Resources – everything from gold to oil and gas.
Mr Putin does not need clever Credit Money manipulations and neither do his associates – so they are free to attack (or get their servants to attack) this form of corruption in the West. Because their own form of corruption does not depend on it.
It is a bit like Mr Putin and his associates attacking race relations in Britain and the United States.
There are a handful of non white people in Russia – who they trot out for the cameras. They are absolutely no-challenge-what-so-ever to the domination of Russia by Russians.
So Russian television, like Chinese Communist Party television (just how racially diverse are the big cities of the People’s Republic of China? that does not stop them endlessly attacking the “racist” West), can attack the West as “racist”.
Anyone who thinks the “anti Racist” Mr Putin would tolerate the demography of his native St Petersburg changing as, say, Chicago or New York has done in his life time (since 1952 – I think he was born then) is delusional.
By the way the enemy of Mr Putin (a hero of the West – who is presently, unjustly, in prison) does not even pretend to be “Woke” – he is an open Russian Nationalist. An Ethnic Russian Nationalist – what in the West would be a called a “Racist”.
Russia does not have a tradition of Frankfurt School Marxism – “Stalin” condemned this form of Marxism (he was a Classical Marxist) and the Soviet Union regarded the Frankfurt School as a weapon to be used against the West – most certainly NOT to be applied in Russia.
As for the economic side – Mr Putin can take gold, gems and other stuff (he would regard this as his right – as the ruler) and also his associates demand payments and so on (think of Chicago under Al Capone – cross Mr Putin and he will have you murdered, support him and he does not mind you running a business), but he can also do “Neo Liberal” things such as have a flat rate income tax.
He may even establish a commodity currency – say gold. Why not? His own form of corruption does not depend on a flew of Credit Money (banker book keeping tricks).
By the way St Petersburg is actually a YOUNGER city than New York.
But if you suggested to Mr Putin that because Russians have only controlled this city for a few centuries (indeed it has only existed for a few centuries) they have no right to it – he would smile pleasantly, say that you might well have a point, that the city would be so much better if Russians there were a minority (or were not there at all). And then you would die (horribly) of poisoning some time later.
Natalie,
A few things here:
1. Personally, I don’t know what the term neo-liberal technically means or what it “originally” meant.
2. My understanding of neo-liberal is that it does share a lot in common with Thatcherism/Reaganism in terms of pro-free markets and cutting taxes + regulations.
3. Over here in the states neo-liberal is often used as a pejorative – usually against centrist or more moderate politicians of both parties. The reasons are different, but similar. Basically, on both sides of the aisle neo-liberals care more about big business, wall street, free trade, mass immigration, exporting jobs overseas, and regime change wars than about the actual issues that animate and energize the political bases on both sides the aisle. For the right, this would be guns, abortion, immigration, and more recently freedom of speech. For the left, this would be communism (barely an exaggeration at this point).
Johnathan Pearce,
Short answer: yes. But I do see what you are getting at. Often, the answer is no.
I think that increasingly the term neo-liberal is being used by both sides (especially the left, but increasingly the right as well) as a pejorative to refer to centrist, pro-wall street, pro-big business, pro-regime change wars of the establishment BLOB of the Washington Swamp of both parties. At least over on this side of the pond.
That neo-liberal isn’t used accurately should be no surprise, given how the term liberal is misused so consistently and has basically taken on a meaning foreign to its original definition.
Found via Instapundit & Twitchy: