Rethink market capitalism?

[myata]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The  future is a long way away, but also - it's here .... now.   Anything can be changed, including money itself.  They could decide to make money 100% digital, or control the money supply digitally.  

I agree that it's a failure of imagination but not in the sense of technology that will miraculously solve all our problems. It's in the ability to limit the development and expansion based on what is sustainable. First we see and think that can be done and what not. And then we do. Not the other way around. And that has not yet happened with us, ever. We first expand, then see what happened and what can be fixed. And that worked while we had an unlimited space to expand to. But that is no longer the case. We reached the boundary of our space. Any big screw up now and we have a problem on the planetary scale and can't be certain that it could be rolled backed, cleaned up and we could go back to business as usual.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. I agree that it's a failure of imagination but not in the sense of technology that will miraculously solve all our problems.

2. It's in the ability to limit the development and expansion based on what is sustainable.

3. First we see and think that can be done and what not. And then we do. Not the other way around. And that has not yet happened with us, ever. We first expand, then see what happened and what can be fixed. And that worked while we had an unlimited space to expand to. But that is no longer the case.
4. We reached the boundary of our space. Any big screw up now and we have a problem on the planetary scale and can't be certain that it could be rolled backed, cleaned up and we could go back to business as usual.

1.  Agree very much.
2. Yes, but one could also argue that the true costs are not being paid and change the model.  But ok.
3. But we're also looking back at process changes, at philosophy, past viewpoints like Fukuyama's "End of History" etc.  We still have unlimited mental space to expand to.
4. There's no way to know but your pessimism and caution are perhaps prudent, and at least well-founded.
 

[cougar]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Don't let others or the system determine your identity and dictate what you're entitled to.  

My interpretation of the American dream is I believe the mainstream interpretation of unlimited financial success that can be achieved in a lifetime through hard work and ingenuity in a fair market.

But there is no such thing as a fair market any more, unless you come up with your own unique product or service.  Most is large monopolistic entities spanning countries and continents.

About the line I quoted above; the system is still determining what one is entitled to (for the masses) and letting the super rich run wild.  Think about "employees" and minimum wage.  The standard of life for these people and what used to be the middle class has been going down for decades.

But you know what?  A proper system will determine what "you are entitled to" in order to preserve what is around.

If you are competing like an animal, your size and strength will determine the "property" you will have and the number of females you can breed with, but it will be all withing reason. 

In our fucked up world you let someone lay hands on hundreds of square kilometers of land on all continents he is interested in, you let him strip this land with the help of others and convert it into whatever he wants and keep everyone else out, not with his presence and physical strength but with the laws he has created for himself.   He also has the ability to prolong his life by decades. And this is what leads to the disaster we have today.

[myata]

On 3/28/2021 at 6:20 PM, Michael Hardner said:

4. There's no way to know but your pessimism and caution are perhaps prudent, and at least well-founded.
 

No arguing that there's no way to know for certain, the thing is though that if the things indeed turn pessimistic, the first attempt to find that out can also be the last.

[myata]

It only needs to be added that the failure here is not that of: technology; resources; wealth; worthy goals; ideas and so on. It is a failure of the vision and scope.

When we talk about sustainability, should be the poorest, overcrowded countries that set the example? Look at this country, it has everything to show the world a model of sustainable development and well-being of citizens. We had no reason to not try it, other than our own choice to choose status quo; complacency and endless repetition of the past.

Net-zero impact, sustainable in the long term communities.
Responsible and benefiting everybody exploitation of natural resources.
Open and inclusive economy based on meaningful participation.
State of the art public infrastructure.
Continuous and flexible education.
Fairness and inclusion in income distribution (consider "public" CEOs with million-dollar benefits vs. maintenance workers contracted out on minimal wage)

If we aren't doing any of this, it's not somebody or something making us. It is our vision of our future and how we choose to create it. And most certainly what we're going to get.

 

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

 

If we aren't doing any of this, it's not somebody or something making us. It is our vision of our future and how we choose to create it. And most certainly what we're going to get.

 

I agree to a point, but the mid 20th century saw great change, and positive change, for G7 countries.  Why was that ?  Did people adopt some different vision ?  No, it was our leaders and the mechanisms we used to prioritize and discuss ideas.

We have many distractions in this current era, but we also have the tools to do what we did then only better and more inclusively.  We need to talk about it and promote the idea that our original systems can be renewed and tuned up.

[myata]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

but the mid 20th century saw great change, and positive change, for G7 countries.  Why was that ?  Did people adopt some different vision ? 

Boom and bust cycles have been with us (i.e. humanity) for as long as we remember ourselves, take beaver killing rush, forests for lumber devastation rush, gold rush and that was consumerism rush. What we haven't figured out yet is two things: that we're approaching the hard stop, the boundary of all rushes; and how to be, scratch that, even try and think doing things sustainably in the long run.

Edited March 30, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

1. Boom and bust cycles have been with us (i.e. humanity) for as long as we remember ourselves, take beaver killing rush, forests for lumber devastation rush, gold rush and that was consumerism rush.

2. What we haven't figured out yet is two things: that we're approaching the hard stop, the boundary of all rushes; and how to be, scratch that, even try and think doing things sustainably in the long run.

1. The mid 20th century change wasn't simply a 'boom' like the Gold Rush.  There was a culture change and a general prosperity, advances in science, the arts etc.
2. You may be expecting too much both in terms of the environmental crash (it isn't going to crash in a few years or even decades) and our ability to adapt (we're not going to turn into a Star Trek society in a few years or even decades).  Try to be positive.

You didn't counter my opposition to your view that "we" don't have vision.  I maintain that we need leaders, and we will get them or perish.

[myata]

On 3/30/2021 at 6:50 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. The mid 20th century change wasn't simply a 'boom' like the Gold Rush.  There was a culture change and a general prosperity, advances in science, the arts etc.

You didn't counter my opposition to your view that "we" don't have vision.  I maintain that we need leaders, and we will get them or perish.

Just change does not mean 1) meaningful change or 2) necessary change. The mass consumerism rush of the second half of last century increased prosperity in some regions of the world, but it did not bring us any closer, or even can be argued, veered even further away from the possibility of a sustained existence in a balance with the environment that could be maintained.

I don't quite understand how leaders could replace vision, concept and meaningful objectives for a community or a nation? I can't translate even the greatest vision if it has no place in my day to day life. That's climate change if I have a truck and two SUV in the family, and sustainable development with a mansion, cottage and a boat. It's nice to believe that it would work out somehow, could it though? Could it be a distraction from the vague inner unease that despite all proclamations we don't really have substance. Or at least it has not been obvious recently.

[OftenWrong]

59 minutes ago, myata said:

I don't quite understand how leaders could replace vision, concept and meaningful objectives for a community or a nation?

Perhaps the leader he seeks is some kind of Messiah. Michael puts his faith, in mankind.

ha,,, ha,,, ha,,,

[OftenWrong]

On 3/23/2021 at 8:24 PM, myata said:

maybe our public administration needs rethinking, to end the endless culture of outrageous privilege and dramatically improve responsibility and efficiency?

The administration is working on a way to keep their outrageous privilege, and dramatically improve responsibility and efficiency at the same time. It involves killing off most of us. The world only needs a few million proletarians, in order to support the Bourgeoisie.

- "Rethinking Market Capitalism", John Maynard OftenWrong, 2021

Edited April 1, 2021 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, myata said:

1. Just change does not mean 1) meaningful change or 2) necessary change.  

2. I don't quite understand how leaders could replace vision, concept and meaningful objectives for a community or a nation? I can't translate even the greatest vision if it has no place in my day to day life.

3. That's climate change if I have a truck and two SUV in the family, and sustainable development with a mansion, cottage and a boat. It's nice to believe that it would work out somehow, could it though?

4. Could it be a distraction from the vague inner unease that despite all proclamations we don't really have substance. Or at least it has not been obvious recently.

1. Ok, but we weren't talking about meaningful or necessary change as I recall.  You were saying something like it's too much to expect drastic change, right ?  Whatever that change was, it was big, and done democratically.  Another example could be the Quiet Revolution in Quebec.

2. Masses, or even publics don't provide vision.  Leaders do - but they need to be valued by the people who put them in power.  It's more like they crystalize the aspects of the people who elect them.   So maybe we are together on this one.

3. You might not have to give those things up, or you might.  But if you are saying "people like SUVs" means climate can't be solved then I don't buy that.  People liking the status quo is no shield against it changing.  People are protesting not being able to go to restaurants and it doesn't mean they will get what they want.  Maybe that's a bad analogy though.

4. We are coddled by consumer culture, I agree on that.  Every commercial, every mass media message is, effectively, "You are great, you deserve everything, your world view is perfect".  It leads to Narcissus culture.

[Right To Left]

On 3/28/2021 at 9:07 PM, cougar said:

My interpretation of the American dream is I believe the mainstream interpretation of unlimited financial success that can be achieved in a lifetime through hard work and ingenuity in a fair market.

But there is no such thing as a fair market any more, unless you come up with your own unique product or service.  Most is large monopolistic entities spanning countries and continents.

One point I'd quibble with here is: "no such thing as a fair market ANY MORE."  

I can't accept that there ever was a "fair market" for many reasons, including the one so many backward looking liberals have adopted about the golden age of America in the post-WWII era up till some time in the 70's, when the wheels started creaking during a time of high oil prices. 

That prosperity post-WWII was built at a time when America (including northern province- Canada) had a virtual manufacturing monopoly and trade surpluses with all of the nations devastated by fighting the War on their home turf. 

That and the fact that people stop believing in natural cycles and start thinking every trend that carries on more than two years will keep increasing and last forever.

So, nobody or at least very few people foresaw that the slack, liberal capitalism of the post-war era was just a blip on the radar, and that as soon as earnings became a little harder to come by, the captains of industry, banking and commerce would all collaborate together on cutting costs to maximize their profits: investing a little money in propaganda mills (politely known as policy research institutes) and training new generations of politicians, economists and judges in proper neoliberal capitalist ideology that has the gall to try to make moral and ethical arguments for impoverishing working class people and kicking all the money up to the top...just like the Mafia and Hell's Angels! Organized crime should be kicking themselves now for never having the foresight to build this kind of racket that has so many willing slaves out spouting the latest propaganda from Musk, Bezos, Gates and other high priests of capitalism on Twitter and other social media today! 

We've been heading back into the 'older normal' for at least 10 years, maybe 20 years even...since New World Order was being planned out even before 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq, that led off with a do-nothing strategy of allowing bloody genocides in Rwanda and to a lesser extent in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Krajina and Kosovo, before Clinton Admin policy advisers crafted a "Responsibility To Protect" doctrine, and declared that since the UN Security Council was always divided, NATO had the "responsibility" to step in and carry out the R2P agenda wherever needed in the world...sovereign nations be damned! 

Deliberately destroying nations and forcing entire populations into exile (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and more) risking their lives and the survival of their children in vain attempts to cross the Mediterranean to get to Europe, or cross the Rio Grande, fences, walls and deserts to Amerika and in both places, live the rest of their lives as sweatshop laborers at best, is an extremely ruthless, immoral -- but still highly profitable enterprise for many of the top players: arms merchants and weapons makers, the private-for profit prison industries (legalized slavery), and all of the sweatshops in America and Europe that want large numbers of undocumented workers for the cheapest jobs and just as important: to act as a counterweight against work actions by employees for higher wages and better working conditions.

In other words, "market" capitalism is just reverting back to its old habits in our modern era of desperation and depleted wealth. 

[bush_cheney2004]

13 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

 before Clinton Admin policy advisers crafted a "Responsibility To Protect" doctrine, and declared that since the UN Security Council was always divided, NATO had the "responsibility" to step in and carry out the R2P agenda wherever needed in the world...sovereign nations be damned!

 

Nope....R2P was not developed by the Clinton administration as policy doctrine.   NATO's action during the Kosovo War (1999) was to force Serbia/Milošević back to peace negotiations.   Clinton acted to protect U.S. interests, not R2P.

Canada, the ICISS, and African Union has far more to do with formally crafting such a policy to counter sovereignty claims, even without the capacity to enforce it.   Chretien (Canada) had previously failed to convince Clinton to intervene in Rwanda and provide the armour/heavy airlift to do so, as Canada had neither.

[blackbird]

45 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

One point I'd quibble with here is: "no such thing as a fair market ANY MORE."  

I can't accept that there ever was a "fair market" for many reasons, including the one so many backward looking liberals have adopted about the golden age of America in the post-WWII era up till some time in the 70's, when the wheels started creaking during a time of high oil prices. 

That prosperity post-WWII was built at a time when America (including northern province- Canada) had a virtual manufacturing monopoly and trade surpluses with all of the nations devastated by fighting the War on their home turf. 

That and the fact that people stop believing in natural cycles and start thinking every trend that carries on more than two years will keep increasing and last forever.

So, nobody or at least very few people foresaw that the slack, liberal capitalism of the post-war era was just a blip on the radar, and that as soon as earnings became a little harder to come by, the captains of industry, banking and commerce would all collaborate together on cutting costs to maximize their profits: investing a little money in propaganda mills (politely known as policy research institutes) and training new generations of politicians, economists and judges in proper neoliberal capitalist ideology that has the gall to try to make moral and ethical arguments for impoverishing working class people and kicking all the money up to the top...just like the Mafia and Hell's Angels! Organized crime should be kicking themselves now for never having the foresight to build this kind of racket that has so many willing slaves out spouting the latest propaganda from Musk, Bezos, Gates and other high priests of capitalism on Twitter and other social media today! 

We've been heading back into the 'older normal' for at least 10 years, maybe 20 years even...since New World Order was being planned out even before 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq, that led off with a do-nothing strategy of allowing bloody genocides in Rwanda and to a lesser extent in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Krajina and Kosovo, before Clinton Admin policy advisers crafted a "Responsibility To Protect" doctrine, and declared that since the UN Security Council was always divided, NATO had the "responsibility" to step in and carry out the R2P agenda wherever needed in the world...sovereign nations be damned! 

Deliberately destroying nations and forcing entire populations into exile (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and more) risking their lives and the survival of their children in vain attempts to cross the Mediterranean to get to Europe, or cross the Rio Grande, fences, walls and deserts to Amerika and in both places, live the rest of their lives as sweatshop laborers at best, is an extremely ruthless, immoral -- but still highly profitable enterprise for many of the top players: arms merchants and weapons makers, the private-for profit prison industries (legalized slavery), and all of the sweatshops in America and Europe that want large numbers of undocumented workers for the cheapest jobs and just as important: to act as a counterweight against work actions by employees for higher wages and better working conditions.

In other words, "market" capitalism is just reverting back to its old habits in our modern era of desperation and depleted wealth. 

There never was a perfect world ever since the fall of man when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden in the beginning.  But God has given mankind the right to private property and has said thou shalt not steal.  Even though things have appeared to work out unfairly in a lot of cases, free enterprise is still the best system in the world and normally does not steal or violate the right to own private property.  Having crooked people in the world does not diminish from the value of fundamental freedom and democracy.  So we should not wish for an authoritarian system or Marxist system to try to fix the world.  If we lose our freedom and rights, we will be far worse off and become slaves to a big brother that will be looking after number one first and the rest of us not at all.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. We are coddled by consumer culture, I agree on that.  Every commercial, every mass media message is, effectively, "You are great, you deserve everything, your world view is perfect".  It leads to Narcissus culture.

It's really difficult to separate the cause and effect here. Are we narcissistic because ads made us so or we reward those who tell us what we like to hear? In any case, the question here is can we, the society change at the pace that is required by the changing environment (think dinosaurs). And if you know the answer to that great for you, because I don't. I haven't seen it as and we're half way to supposedly, net zero (but only in carbon accounting, still long way to full sustainability).

[Right To Left]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nope....R2P was not developed by the Clinton administration as policy doctrine.   NATO's action during the Kosovo War (1999) was to force Serbia/Milošević back to peace negotiations.   Clinton acted to protect U.S. interests, not R2P.

Canada, the ICISS, and African Union has far more to do with formally crafting such a policy to counter sovereignty claims, even without the capacity to enforce it.   Chretien (Canada) had previously failed to convince Clinton to intervene in Rwanda and provide the armour/heavy airlift to do so, as Canada had neither.

The outstanding question is how much of R2P was developed by Clinton's team back in the 90's and was later put in operation by Bush and fully rolled out with ideological justifications for invading Libya and overthrowing Gadaffi and setting up the endless quagmire that somehow western leaders considered better than when Gadaffi was in charge, and Libya was the wealthiest per capita nation in Africa! 

Some years back now, on the Pacifica Public Radio Network flagship news show - Democracy Now, former 5 star general - Wesley Clark said this to host- Amy Goodman:

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

https://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated

7 countries in five years, indicates that...according to Clark, premeditated regime change plans were already well under way at least as far back as just after the Afghanistan Invasion. The planners were intending to reorder the Middle East to their liking, and by their leftovers it would indicate that they didn't really care about what was left behind in the aftermath!

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, myata said:

It's really difficult to separate the cause and effect here. Are we narcissistic because ads made us so or we reward those who tell us what we like to hear? In any case, the question here is can we, the society change at the pace that is required by the changing environment (think dinosaurs). And if you know the answer to that great for you, because I don't. I haven't seen it as and we're half way to supposedly, net zero (but only in carbon accounting, still long way to full sustainability).

Thinking that government can deliver utopia to you is naive thinking.  Government cannot solve the world's problems or create a utopia.  Trusting in government and expecting them to look after everything is a huge mistake.  Because of human nature, the only thing politicians will do is set up a system to benefit themselves and their friends and relatives.  Best thing is to look after yourself in the best way you can and trust in God and his word.  That has the answers, not politicians or ideologues.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

7 countries in five years, indicates that...according to Clark, premeditated regime change plans were already well under way at least as far back as just after the Afghanistan Invasion. The planners were intending to reorder the Middle East to their liking, and by their leftovers it would indicate that they didn't really care about what was left behind in the aftermath!

 

General Clark already discredited himself after NATO's Kosovo War, and R2P was never an American doctrine, as it superseded sovereignty by definition.   Canada jumped all over R2P with like minded allies that lacked the military and economic power to enforce "human rights", another parallel doctrine that gained strength after WW2.   Michael Ignatieff built a career on the R2P narrative in politics and academia.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was neocon doctrine (Bush), not neoliberal (Clinton).  Libya was an Arab Spring civil war domino, and it was the French and British who led UN/NATO actions against Gadaffi before the Americans (Obama) reluctantly agreed to join the UN no-fly zone and "human rights" military campaign with "unique" American capabilities.

R2P and "human rights" have consistently been drafted as cover stories for many such interventions, because that is what they are designed to do.   Economic sanctions are tried initially, but often fail to achieve the desired results (regime change) fast enough or at all.  Capital and markets do not work in unison for R2P objectives, and are explicitly flexible enough to bypass and undermine such things.

[cougar]

On 4/1/2021 at 1:38 PM, blackbird said:

Even though things have appeared to work out unfairly in a lot of cases, free enterprise is still the best system in the world and normally does not steal or violate the right to own private property.  Having crooked people in the world does not diminish from the value of fundamental freedom and democracy.  So we should not wish for an authoritarian system or Marxist system to try to fix the world.  If we lose our freedom and rights, we will be far worse off and become slaves to a big brother that will be looking after number one first and the rest of us not at all.

You seem to be confusing the realities:

Socialism does not mean you are deprived of private property.  All it does is, it limits your properties in number and size.  If you end up closer to the middle class or lower in our "perfect" market capitalist society you might understand why this is done and might actually find it fair.   If your landlord did not have the right to buy your house, the house was going to be yours and you would have to pay less for it and have more freedoms

So we came to the issue of freedom.   How free are you living from paycheque to paycheque , paying rent and praying the landlord doesn't raise the rent cause this may put you on the street??  

You will be praying for a Marxist society one day!

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by cougar

[Right To Left]

On 4/1/2021 at 5:06 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

General Clark already discredited himself after NATO's Kosovo War, and R2P was never an American doctrine, as it superseded sovereignty by definition.   Canada jumped all over R2P with like minded allies that lacked the military and economic power to enforce "human rights", another parallel doctrine that gained strength after WW2.   Michael Ignatieff built a career on the R2P narrative in politics and academia.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, unless you're arguing for the sake of arguing! Whoever listened to anything Michael Ignatieff ever had to say? Here or in the US!  I would say that hideous red-haired scrag - Samantha Power had a hell of a lot more influence on the drive for "humanitarian intervention" when she was a CNN pundit in the 90's with close ties with everybody in the Clinton White House. 

Anyway, the massive bombing campaign against Serbia in the 90's, was justified by the Clinton Admin and Blairites in London by false claims that Serbians were carrying out a genocide in Kosovo. They may have been ethnic cleansing...since they were forcing Kosovars out of the northern part of the mostly Albanian territory where Serbs were a majority and the Government was under pressure to protect orthodox churches and other holy sites from a Muslim extremist KLA. 

AND most of the deaths in that war were caused by NATO....because Billy didn't want to risk casualties by putting American boots on the ground, and went with Clark's plan of "Just bomb the shit out of them until they give up and surrender!"  Some of the fascinating factoids from the Air War were just how ineffective continuous aerial bombing campaigns are against determined adversaries who will just hide expensive hardware (like tanks and fighter jets) until the bombing campaign is over. The end result was making Serbia and other Orthodox eastern nations besides Russia enemies of the US and Europe, because of the death and destruction they caused for such little gain. Although the US got the One thing they wanted out of the war: a giant Air Force and Army base in Kosovo -- Camp Bondsteel.  Who needs Germany anyway!

Quote

 

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was neocon doctrine (Bush), not neoliberal (Clinton).  Libya was an Arab Spring civil war domino, and it was the French and British who led UN/NATO actions against Gadaffi before the Americans (Obama) reluctantly agreed to join the UN no-fly zone and "human rights" military campaign with "unique" American capabilities.

R2P and "human rights" have consistently been drafted as cover stories for many such interventions, because that is what they are designed to do.   Economic sanctions are tried initially, but often fail to achieve the desired results (regime change) fast enough or at all.  Capital and markets do not work in unison for R2P objectives, and are explicitly flexible enough to bypass and undermine such things.

 

By now, everyone who is honest and paying attention should fully realize that R2P was never more than a contrivance to justify foreign invasions and occupations. There was no "Arab Spring uprisings" in Libya, which regardless of what everyone here thought of Gadaffi, was properly distributing oil export profits to his own people, making Libya the wealthiest per capita nation on the African continent. And what landed with me after the large, bipartisan drumbeat of D's and R's and media concern trolls kept droning on "what are we going to do about Gadaffi?" was that after NATO destroyed the capital - Tripoli and sent in Muslim mercenaries to kill and terrorize the people, everyone and I mean absolutely everyone packed up and moved on and never talked about Libya again......except "oops, it's turned into a failed state, and more people are dying trying to flee across the Mediterranean to Europe."  And that killing of a fake ambassador at the fake embassy in the eastern city of Benghazi, when some deal fell through between various murderous "freedom fighters" regarding handing back heavy weapons and moving on to the next regime change operation in Syria. 

For me, the silence by the so called "left" of that time( even so called 'independent left'), who had been so loud about "Bush's wars" really added to my cynicism levels and realizing that the leading voices on the bought-off left were just out there to get paid and try to steer followers in directions that their paymasters want from them. 

But, before I forget, Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism are two schools of thought that aren't even involving the same subject areas. The modern leaders can be neoliberal (extreme capitalist) on economics and neoconservative foreign policy because of the overlap. Main difference between the two is that Neocon is close to fascism in its desires to use military to project power and enforce its economic doctrines...especially on trade terms. While the neoliberal is mostly concerned with having a fire sale in government functions and responsibilities. Our fat, dopey Premier of Ontario is doing this right now with his plan to dish out billions to build a new highway, and the proposed route just happens to run across property owned by several of his fellow millionaire friends and supporters. 

Edited April 3, 2021 by Right To Left

[Right To Left]

22 hours ago, cougar said:

You seem to be confusing the realities:

Socialism does not mean you are deprived of private property.  All it does is, it limits your properties in number and size.  If you end up closer to the middle class or lower in our "perfect" market capitalist society you might understand why this is done and might actually find it fair.   If your landlord did not have the right to buy your house, the house was going to be yours and you would have to pay less for it and have more freedoms

So we came to the issue of freedom.   How free are you living from paycheque to paycheque , paying rent and praying the landlord doesn't raise the rent cause this may put you on the street??  

You will be praying for a Marxist society one day!

 

One place you won't find modern concepts like democracy written about is in the Bible!  I suppose because 'man is a sinner,' we're supposed to just obey and follow orders from our masters, and act in as Christ-like a manner as possible. So, fundamentalist Christians should still be feudalists by this logic. And that's how the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings survived so long. 

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

 Main difference between the two is that Neocon is close to fascism in its desires to use military to project power and enforce its economic doctrines...especially on trade terms. While the neoliberal is mostly concerned with having a fire sale in government functions and responsibilities.

 

No, both rely on a backstop of raw military and economic power, no matter how different the narrative(s) may be...to not only sustain foreign policy objectives, but to remain in a position to do so at any time when desired.   Both the Clinton neoliberals and Bush neocons said to hell with the UN and pressed on with their agenda using military and economic power....because they could.  

Raw American power projection ultimately stems from economic power, and it has always been thus.   Those without such power have to settle for the language of a lesser god.

[Right To Left]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, both rely on a backstop of raw military and economic power, no matter how different the narrative(s) may be...to not only sustain foreign policy objectives, but to remain in a position to do so at any time when desired.   Both the Clinton neoliberals and Bush neocons said to hell with the UN and pressed on with their agenda using military and economic power....because they could.  

Raw American power projection ultimately stems from economic power, and it has always been thus.   Those without such power have to settle for the language of a lesser god.

Well, one clear difference then between Neocons and Neolibs  is that the former talk about military power and projecting the use of force for reasons that can include economic issues...but not necessarily, while the neoliberal just talks about deregulating capital markets and removing tariffs and duties by joining trade pacts. There was not actually much of substance distinguishing Bush from Clinton, largely because of the large internal military and security state bureaucracies that carry on doing what they want regardless of what any politicians have to say. Trump found this out when he wanted to take US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, and discovered months later that his orders were ignored and not forwarded down the chain of command! 

As for Neoliberalism....supposedly when the Reaganites made "free trade" the buzz word of the 80's and 90's, all this shit like FTA which quickly morphed into NAFTA would benefit everyone and that's why there was a growing consensus of leaders around the world who joined the GATT and let's not forget the most obvious bullshit fraud of that time: "nations which trade openly with each other, don't go to war against each other." Good thing it all worked out so well!

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Right To Left said:

As for Neoliberalism....supposedly when the Reaganites made "free trade" the buzz word of the 80's and 90's, all this shit like FTA which quickly morphed into NAFTA would benefit everyone and that's why there was a growing consensus of leaders around the world who joined the GATT and let's not forget the most obvious bullshit fraud of that time: "nations which trade openly with each other, don't go to war against each other." Good thing it all worked out so well!

 

It did work out well...and the present Canadian government desperately seeks to cling to the post WW2 "rules based order" that Trump threatened to undermine by withdrawing American military and economic power from the free trade "fraud".   Before this, "Axis of Evil" membership was created for those nations that purposely threatened neoliberal and neocon foreign policy / economic frameworks.   Canada could not offer much in the way of raw power, but it could develop human rights R2P,  honest brokering, and a commensurate "seat at the table" secondary role to other (more powerful) allies.

This is not the first time the Americans had upset the status quo, as Richard Nixon's administration had previously done so by leaving Bretton Woods (Switzerland and West Germany had already done so) in favour of floating fiat currencies and  continued U.S. dollar hegemony “to create a new prosperity without war.”   But the wars would continue anyway, for the usual reasons.