There are such things as "marketing greats"? I'll pass. — Bitter Crank

Why wouldn't there be? I'm not quite sure what you imply, but yes, of course there is such a thing as someone who is great at marketing, the same way there is such a thing as someone who is great at painting.

So long as everyone reading this understands the kind of person they’re conversing with, then my input would have served some purpose, — Wayfarer

Yeah, an open-minded person, not a closed-minded propagandist like you :-}

When you allow for private industry to a greater extent than it previously existed, then that industry, and thereby the country, can make more money by trading the products of that industry internationally. — Thorongil

And why can't a government-owned industry trade (presuming that other governments don't stop it from trading by force)? :s

You don't seem to understand a basic necessity of growth and development. Growth and development require a net positive influx of capital into the country. That obviously cannot - simply cannot - be achieved by an economically isolated nation. It's not about the economic system - for that matter, either communism or capitalism can work (and this is what you don't seem to get - you seem to think that it's communism's internal fault alone that caused it to fail economically). In an economically isolated nation, the amount of capital always remains the same, it is just re-distributed around and around through the economy as people trade. To have net-positive gains, you need to export - to trade with other nations, or alternatively, to have other nations invest in your country. So investment and exports are the two ways to bring capital into your country. Centrally planned economies can do this just as well as capitalist economies can.

I won't deny any genuine goods provided by communism, but whatever they are, they could have been provided by another system, which means that communism still doesn't deserve any praise. — Thorongil

Right, obviously - as I said before it's not the system, but other conditions that are more important.

I never thought I'd see you making a seemingly relativistic point here. It was really good for atheists who hated Christianity, the family, the kulak, the Jew, and so on, for example. — Thorongil

No, the Central Committee of the Communist Party (CCCP) was very much pro-family and anti-abortion, and otherwise socially conservative. Marxism(-Leninism) as it existed in the USSR and the Soviet Bloc was different than the Marxism espoused by the Western Marxists.

But it's not just the state apparatus who profited. It's the millions of people who were needed by the state apparatus to run the economy. The peasants who were taken from the countryside, given housing, provided jobs, provided free education, etc. - these people profited. The CCCP couldn't run the country all alone.

Little do you realize that there are and have been many people in Western history departments and among the general Western intelligentsia sympathetic to the Soviet Union. — Thorongil

Yes, but they are also propagandists, and they're sympathetic to something they don't even understand. They read their own Marxism onto the Soviet Union.

Both ideologies were exceedingly murderous, but communism has by far the larger body count, a fact many communists like to downplay in various ways. — Thorongil

Sure, I agree.

Putin is someone who has contributed to the economic isolation of Russia, is dictatorial, and is a craven political opportunist. — Thorongil

That's false, Putin has done very well for Russia.

I sense in the background of your remarks the positions of Putin, who pretends to be an Orthodox Christian, yet admires the Soviet Union and is a warmonger of the worst kind. — Thorongil

Putin actually is an Orthodox Christian and doesn't much admire the Soviet Union.

social conservative positions — StreetlightX

Yeah, the great social conservative Milton Friedman >:O >:O >:O . No, they weren't for that matter social conservatives. And even if some of them were, all that means is that they didn't understand the contradiction between their economic and social positions.

If your preferred economics is distributionism, that is pretty much what the relocalisation and social entrepreneur crowd are advocating as an antidote to corrupt neoliberalism - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise

So a smart government could get in behind an alternative. — apokrisis

Yeah, as if the neo-liberal elite will willingly renounce their money and power, in order to make space for social enterprises :-} . But yes, I am aware that the two (distributism and social enterprise) are very similar, although distributism is more complex and extensive than merely social enterprise.

Because you seem a reasonable person in most respects, except for your opinions about politics, such as your frequent dismissals of the importance of democratic principles. It might be a consequence of not having been acculturated to democracy. — Wayfarer

If anything, I understand that democracy is nothing special. I don't have a fetish for it, the way you do.

I knew it wouldn't contain anything about identity politics, sexual promiscuity, and whatnot. — Sapientia

Right. Those are Agustino's (et al) obsessions. — Bitter Crank

Yep. — Sapientia

*shakes head* self-congratulatory non-sense. You don't seem to understand the interrelations between these things. At least BC has tried to provide an alternative version (albeit wrong), but you Sappy :-}

Consumerism (as presented theoretically in advertising) is not intended to contribute to sexual license. — Bitter Crank

Sure, it's not intended to contribute to it directly. That's a side-effect.

Consumption is intended to take the place of sexual gratification. — Bitter Crank

Wrong. You don't understand advertising theory, at least as it is applied in practice by people such as Claude Hopkins, John Caples, Eugene Schwartz, etc.

Consumption is not intended to take the place of sexual gratification at all. That's not what an advertiser does when he shows a hot woman with many guys staring after her 6 months after she used a weight loss product. On the contrary, consumption seeks to attach and facilitate sexual desire - ie, take this weight loss product, in 6 months you'll have guys staring after you too (and hence you'll have access to sex, that's the subliminal message).

A consumer economy tries to divert gratification from sex to buying products (which advertising sets up as a quick satisfying experience). — Bitter Crank

Nope. More sex = more products sold. More condoms, more contraceptives, more sex toys, more porn, more medical drugs, more lawyer services (divorce), etc.

What confuses many people is that vaguely to specifically sexual imagery or innuendo is employed in advertising to transfer sexual attractiveness from our normal object (people) to tends of thousands of products — Bitter Crank

Again, that's not how advertising works.

Of course, libido isn't the only drive that advertisers work with. — Bitter Crank

Yes, there are around 8 of what advertisers consider biologically programmed desires.

Whatever theoretical model of advertising, selling, and closed sales is employed, "sexual promiscuity" isn't the object. Neither are political correctness or identity politics. — Bitter Crank

No, not the directly intended object, but it is a side-effect of it. I've already outlined how. In order to sell you my weight loss product I have to sell you the benefit of losing weight, one of them being more sex. But that's not all, obviously. It's probably not even the primary benefit. Health and wellness would be the primary benefit. Feeling more energy, being happier, being more motivated, being more engaged in life, etc.

You don't understand how advertising works at all. Products are NEVER sold. It's the BENEFIT that is sold - the state the consumer exists in after using the product. So trust me, I've done marketing for some clients and read extensively about it, I'm more than sure that I'm correct about this.

Business is about selling stuff, or services, to people. Period. — Bitter Crank

>:O Read one of the marketing greats. This is the idea they laugh at.

Business needs to be restrained, not let loose to wreak havoc. — Sapientia

Big business*

Yes, that's an aspect of freer markets for these countries. :-| — Thorongil

No, that's an aspect of being allowed to trade with other countries, which the Eastern bloc wasn't allowed while it was communist. (and it wasn't because the communists didn't want to trade).

No you won't. This is proven time and time again. Command economies are inefficient and ridden with corruption. Compare Chile to Venezuela today, for example. — Thorongil

That's more of the combined effects of economic isolation and brutal dictatorship, not just command economy.

Okay, whatever you say, comrade Agustino. ;) — Thorongil

Right, well you've only read in your history books, which are also propaganda to a certain extent, what happened. To expect that the enemies of communism would have said nice things about communism in their history books is of course silly. As I said, there were good parts and bad parts. I for one would not have thrived under communism, nor would I have liked it. But that's me. For some people it really was good.

They were forced to the cities, because of collectivization, given shitty housing, and provided propaganda in lieu of education. — Thorongil

No, that's not what happened.

As for the rest, I am doubtful of their supposed relationship to neoliberalism. — Sapientia

They are just the necessary conditions for globalisation, consumerism, etc. The environmental conditions that make the former possible. Political correctness is necessary - to keep the peace now that there's many immigrants around. Identity politics is necessary - to expand the pool of labourers to women (cheaper labour too), etc.

Do you think this might explain your dismissive attitude towards democracy, which you frequently express? Along with your admiration for the 'strong man leader', which apparently you see in Trump? I mean, if that is the case, then really it would save everyone here a lot of pointless arguments. — Wayfarer

No, I do not think that. Why do you think it might explain it?

Don't be silly. Economic markets largely free of government influence allowed for industrialization. — Thorongil

Has nothing to do with anything. If I'm working for the government, charged to open a factory and get it going, I'll do my work the same way and even better than if I'm an entrepreneur on my own. Government support always helps one be bold.

I never said they had purely free markets. My point was that their expanding the free market since the 1980s has brought economic prosperity they were unable to achieve with a more robust state-controlled economy. — Thorongil

Nope, opening up trade with the world did that.

Neo-liberalism could still be done right — apokrisis

No, I think the problem is systemic, and neo-liberalism itself is the failure.

Why don't we start with where you're getting these ideas of yours about neoliberalism from? — Sapientia

Lots of places, reading, thinking, can't pinpoint one particular source.

As for the rest... — Sapientia

As for the rest what?

Distributism still? — Thorongil

Yes.

I'm down with that, but it's madness to deny the enormous positive impact of the free market. — Thorongil

It's not the free market though, it's just industrialisation and mass production.

China is ruled by a communist party, a party that for several decades has increasingly allowed for a free market, which in turn has brought a large portion of the country out of abject poverty. That's a big difference from massive famines brought about by Mao, when the government controlled the economy and there was no free market. — Thorongil

Well, neither China nor Russia really allowed "free market", even now. It's all a way to be able to trade with other nations. The Communist block was economically isolated, that was the problem, not lack of free markets. Rather the issue was not being able to impose your trade and your businesses and your products on other nations. That's why Russia is struggling to expand its sphere of influence today because this - favourable trade policies - are what is required in order to grow your economy. That's what America did successfully. Otherwise communist China can produce just as efficiently as the US.

And the so-called "free market" in China and Russia isn't what it sounds like. Just that previous state-owned businesses are given under the administration of privates, with the understanding that okay, you take a few million out and focus on growing this but this is ultimately ours, you just handle it for a little while.

As for people suffering under communism, it depends. Many of the peasants lived better under Communism than before. Many were brought to the cities, given housing, education etc. (my family included for example). The intellectuals, religious people, etc. suffered, but many of the peasants and poor people really did better.

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts" ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know I know. It's just funny listening to you people... you just simply can't understand the world anymore... you still think we're the same world that is becoming one humanity, that we're taking down walls, yadda yadda yadda :s - really, you cannot give up the times of your youth.

It's because he's incompetent, narcissistic. demonstrably dishonest, doesn't understand the office that he occupies, he's impulsive, erratic, chauvinist, a threat to world peace and is degrading the democracy of the US. — Wayfarer

Yep, sounds like I'm listening to one of my friend's 65-year-old dad.

This assumes that everything the market allows is on a par with rape. That is patently absurd. Okay, so the market sells contraceptives. That leads to sexual promiscuity. But the market isn't putting a gun to the head of some would-be condom buyer and forcing him to buy the product and engage in immoral sexual relations. — Thorongil

No the market just puts an ad on TV showing how great having sex with that contraceptive is, how free you can be, etc. etc. It's like me telling you a lie.

I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that the Soviet Union and China were great places to live before the economic reforms in the 1980s? — Thorongil

I didn't talk about live, I talked about the fact that economically it did make those countries catch up a lot. China is still communist, and it's been growing a lot faster than the US.

My point was that the market is amoral. It doesn't have to reward the immoral. That's entirely up to the people who interact in the market, buyers and sellers. — Thorongil

Right, so something that does not sanction immorality is not moral, but immoral. If I see someone rape a woman and don't intervene to stop it in any way, presuming that I can safely do it, then I am immoral.

That said, it can be supported by appealing to its ability to lift literally billions of people out of poverty around the world, as it has done in the last century or so. — Thorongil

Right, hurrah for communism for turning the Soviet Union and China from completely destroyed, bankrupt nations into world superpowers :s

Do you like Stoner Mom? :B Your ideal perhaps? :B

That's exactly the point I just made. :-| — Thorongil

So if something rewards both the moral and the immoral is that something moral? :s

I don't know how you find that remotely funny. — TimeLine

Stoner Mom (L)

>:O

These things are neutral, though. There's no internal logic to them that "makes" them support PC, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity. It depends on the values and interests of the people who partake and contribute to them. If they're rotten, then the market will pump out rottenness. — Thorongil

:s that makes no sense. The logic of free markets rewards the satisfaction of ANY desires, it does not care about morality and immorality. If hookers sell, then hookers are what will be sold.

How do you grow the market? Grow desires and create new desires. That's consumerism. People have to give in to their desires, that's good for business. Desires create problems, and businesses have to solve problems. To repair the windows by day, you have to break them by night.

How? — Thorongil

Because

political correctness, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity — Thorongil

Are supported by:

free market, consumerism, and globalism — Thorongil

Oh, forgive me, I did not know that you somehow knew all people all over the world who smoke marijuana and thus have some transnational power that has enabled you to verify all smokers are content with where they are in life. And here I was, silly little me, thinking that smoking causes a temporary sense of contentment because they are unhappy or miserable, which therefore verifies they are in fact not content and the smoking is the tool to assist with that sense of contentment. — TimeLine

Yes, for you, it is recommended that your try smoking it, out of the bong if possible, to get an authentic experience and feel content with your life. Hope you enjoy :D :

Who are left wing neoliberals? — Thorongil

From this forum? I was saying mostly people I know from real life, but from this forum Wayfarer, Banno, VagabondSpectre. Despite the many disagreements these three have, there is major agreement over some essentials.

Do they identify as such? — Thorongil

No they don't.

Who are the right wing neoliberals? — Thorongil

Possibly Hanover, though I'm not sure about him.

Finally, who are the right wingers, besides yourself, who criticize neoliberalism? — Thorongil

On this forum, no one, but there's not many right-wingers here. I'm tempted to say apokrisis, but not sure if it's best to identify him as right-wing. He sounds like neither.

There are conservatives who support the free market, consumerism, and globalism while decrying political correctness, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity. — Thorongil

Yes, they are being contradictory.

There are politically correct identitarian leftists who loathe the free market, consumerism, and globalism. — Thorongil

Hmm okay, that's like liking one effect, but hating the other effects and the cause too.

Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower? — TimeLine

The seal of authority always deceives people in thinking they have more control than they really do, and they can pull more levers than they really can. So when that seal disappears, impotence makes itself known. Authority blinds its possessor, just like a snake hypnotises its prey before it eats it.

If you're 18 and working your ass off making a small salary, you can sleep peacefully. If you're 48 and doing the same, you can't. Making rent and having a little beer money left over isn't enough at a certain point. — Hanover

Well in certain cases yes, due to medical costs or family. But it really depends on the individual person and the country/social system under which they live.

Sounds like you're reminiscing about having little responsibility, not about having the chance to physically labor. If you do find physical labor therapeutic, you can work in your garden. I suppose that's why people do that. — Hanover

I don't think so, even today, I have often thought about doing a business that involves something physical, not services / IT (but I probably won't because I don't feel as confident in my abilities there). It's something that I guess you understand once you work in something like this. It gets psychologically tiring working with computers all the time. Though the problems you do solve are interesting, and sometimes you even get to learn something different in the process too.

I've always loved responsibility so long as I could handle it. Quite the contrary from what you seem to suggest, I've always looked to take on more and more responsibility - even in construction back then, the supervising engineer said I was the most productive of the workers. And both in school and university I took all the additional social (& academic) positions that one could take.

But a lot of this depends on your environment. I'm a very ambitious person by nature, so if my environment allows for it, and there are opportunities, then I grow. For example, while at university, there was an opportunity for me to work in research, so I did it - I always loved taking additional responsibility. But if there are no opportunities, then, well, there are no opportunities. Conserve strength, and wait for the right time.

But at the same time, I am keenly aware that loss hurts more than victory, so I always try to minimise loss first. This basically means that I fight a lot fewer battles than I could fight, but I also lose very little, if ever. I hate losing more than I love winning as strange as that may sound.

Why is neoliberalism undesirable? — sime

Because it seeks to make everyone into a wage-slave, who consumes more and more products, has no morality but that which increases consumption and is a servant to the market. It was Lenin who said that "all official and liberal science defends wage slavery", and I think he was right. Look at what our Universities are doing. Today, they are literarily in the business of producing wage-slaves.

what on earth was bad about the fall of the Berlin Wall? — sime

I didn't say anything was bad now, I just made a remark about what symbolisms the neoliberals hearken back to. We can discuss if it was good or bad though if you want.

IF the Berlin Wall had collapsed under Trump's watch, are you telling me he wouldn't be taking all the credit for it? — sime

He most likely would have, of course.

And in terms of policies that Trump supports or is prepared to sign, and the politicians and media organisations he works with, how exactly is it that he is dynamite in the neoliberal system? — sime

Even Fox is against Trump, or at least not fully positive. There are a lot of Republican interests that are opposed to Trump. Really, it would be fair to say that both parties are against Trump, just that the Republicans seek to use him support some of their interests.

Rational discussion requires engagement. You haven't shown a willingness to engage with others who have pointed out the shortcomings of your position and approach in this thread. If someone just doesn't engage, then no discussion, whether rational or irrational is possible.

Stone her! Stone her! — Wayfarer

No, it's not about that, but the thing is that you're not the first person in your age group 50+ who I've met who thinks exactly the same way. You all miss the golden days of the fall of the Berlin wall, how we are all becoming one humanity, New Ageism, etc. etc. There is a reason why you cannot stand Donald Trump, and that is precisely because in some regards he is dynamite in the neoliberal system. He is part of what both Democrats and Republicans agree that is inadmissible. All the other disagreements between the two parties are superficial compared to this fundamental agreement.

you must post some pictures from your planet one day. It must be very different to ours. — Wayfarer

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most neo-liberal candidate from the whole election, apart from possibly Jeb Bush.

As well as the question of how best politically to manage the puncturing of the illusion. What system of control should best kick in there? — apokrisis

The only real option is the system of control run by the military. I mean what other alternative is there? There have only ever been two sources of power in this world, capital and military. So if capital implodes on itself, it is only sensible that the military will be the one to step in and prevent everything from falling apart - they will also have the justification to step in, since well, otherwise everything falls apart.

Furthermore, as you yourself have said, speculative capital has already corrupted all other industries. There really is nothing left but capital and the military. If capital fails, then it fails as a mechanism of imposing power - it no longer works. So we will revert to the only mechanism of imposing power that can never fail, which is military force.

Military force isn't even now always ruled by capital in all places.

So - decentralisation, global localism, efficient downsizing, distributed networks of production and distribution. — Wayfarer

Funnily enough, you too are a neoliberal. In fact, it is exactly your type that I define as neoliberal, including your approach to religion, capitalism, etc.

The only part where that characterisation fails to a certain extent is your opposition to corporatism, although you don't have a worked out vision of how to "abolish" it. Not like the owners of those corporations are going to willingly surrender their power. And you will certainly not abolish it by electing "the most qualified" person to be President, Crooked Hillary.

I don't agree with Agustino's conception of neoliberalism. — Sapientia

Why not?

And by the way, you have an impression that people on the left use neoliberal as some insult for those on the right, but most neoliberals I know are leftists, not rightists. The right neoliberals are less common today than in the past, but the left ones are a lot more common.

The word is used almost exclusively by left wing journalists and Marxist economists. As such, it carries with it the danger of being a strawman. In fact, I think it is just this. Your comments don't dissuade me from this impression. — Thorongil

So the word is a strawman because some people use it in a way that you don't like? That's why it carries a danger of being a strawman? :s

"...what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, and globalization" seem like the core issues. "...political correctness, identity politics, and sexual promiscuity are epiphenomenal and peripheral — Bitter Crank

Yes and no with regards to PC, IP and SP. They are more peripheral in the sense that they are not the causes of the others. But they are intimately related with what you call the core issues. For example, PC is something that is used to promote globalisation and what it entails - cultural diversity, religious tolerance, pro-immigration, pro-global trade, anti-protectionism. And IP is much the same. With regards to sexual mores, it's also not difficult to see how sexual promiscuity becomes the sine qua non condition of flourishing for consumerism. So it's not a mystery at all that we noticed this decrease in the values of sexual mores (despite the increase in relationship instability) that is correlated with consumerism, the two go hand in hand. Consumerism inherently destroys moral structures and breeds instability.

Most people actually aren't all that promiscuous. — Bitter Crank

I'm not talking about that, just the cultural attitude vis-a-vis promiscuity.

Consumerism presents a special problem. Were a few hundred million people to commence living in an economically and environmentally sustainable way, the world economy would probably dive into a recession. Consumerism drives the growth of the world economy. I don't know what the solution to this problem is. — Bitter Crank

Yes, exactly.

The wages are often quite good, and for many people material work (rather than symbolic work) is preferable. — Bitter Crank

Sometimes I miss physical work, but I've been indoctrinated by my culture that physical work should be avoided if possible. I worked in construction as a labourer for an NGO, but only when I was super young, like 16-18, can't remember the exact age. You worked a lot, but at night you fell asleep so peacefully, and I remember you'd be so tired, even food tasted better when you finally had dinner. Nowadays I only do mental work - web development and marketing. It's easier physically, but more taxing psychically - I think we were designed to find happiness in some degree of physical work.

Brilliant insight and explanation. But, one has to understand that it wouldn't be an issue if tuition was so high. So, how does one lower tuition is the next logical question if there is at all any answer? — Posty McPostface

One problem is the parasite class of University professors, many of whom have given themselves very high salaries. And even more so University management, which has even more ridiculous salaries. Some of these people can earn up to $3m/year. Uni of Chicago President earns around that >:O . Why does he earn that much? Because:



The problem isn't just the Uni fees, it's that the quality of the education doesn't deserve that much. If you went on to earn $150K/year after college, sure, but that's not the case. Many people go to college with the expectation that it will help them be big boys and girls who get to have a say in what happens in the world, and who can have an easier life after. But that's not the case. Rich people who go to university - I met some amongst the non-EU students in the UK when I attended university (they have much higher fees, something like 3 times higher, so they pay like £25,000-27,000 per year just in tuition fees) - seem to go to University precisely as an insurance policy... most of them go to work for their family business anyway, and the uni degree is useless except as an insurance policy in case their family business goes completely belly up and they need to find a way to survive. For them, it's pennies anyway.

So the problem is that the worth of education is highly inflated. College professors have you believe that you'll be a big boy after you attend their institutions, but this is false. Colleges are pretty much in the business of producing wage slaves today. From the people I've been with in school, and the people I've been with in University, I'm the only one being self-employed (or starting a business). Everyone else either has a job (most of them), or as I said before, they work for a family business. So most of them are wage slaves. Uni didn't give us the skills not to be wage slaves. I had to learn them myself in my case, and it was very stressful and 24/7 work for like the first 1-2 months - it also helped to start work as self-employed in a developing economy, less competition.

There's plenty of that going on all the time. I care that about whether anyone has himself identified as a neoliberal. If no one does, then it's a term of abuse, pure and simple. — Thorongil

Nope, that doesn't follow. Just because they're not aware of a series of presuppositions, ways of thinking, and ways of living that they share does not mean that they don't have this in common. In fact, quite the contrary - given that neoliberalism has infiltrated both the right and the left, it will be what forms the common framework of shared assumptions under which both parties operate. The Republicans hate Trump, and the Democrats also hate Trump. I'm talking about the parties now. That's why McCain so easily shakes hands with Joe Biden, or Bob Corker wants Trump out as much as Sanders.