Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
hasanhh

the World vs. neo-LiberaIism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

l know that l have referred to this Op-Ed at least twice on ShiaChat over the years, yet l will again.

ln the mid to late 1990s, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal sounded a warning about the complacent attitude the major economies had about their liberalized, free-trade economies. Citing what began in the 1890s, the article went on to describe the rise of challenges to this pre- oil dominated World which culminated in World War 1 and the following seventy plus years of dealing with that war's consequences. Then the article forecasted there would be some "another challenge" to the  neo-liberal, New World Order of the 1990s.

Here is a short article that identifies this new, expected challenge:  https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/protesters-the-world-over-are-united-in-pushing-back-against-neoliberalism-32058 

An example on ShiaChat is my topic "Equador and Decree 883". The protests current in the Czech Republic, throughout South Amerika, France, West and Southwest Asia and so forth are other examples. Plus a lot of small wars.

And what l think will seriously exaserbate this is Washington blocking the appointment of Appellant Judges at the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Without this function, the WTO cannot function and by default, US hegemonic dominance of international finance will rule uninterrupted by formal challenges and legal processes.

Yarrabi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l know that l have referred to this Op-Ed at least twice on ShiaChat over the years, yet l will again.

ln the mid to late 1990s, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal sounded a warning about the complacent attitude the major economies had about their liberalized, free-trade economies. Citing what began in the 1890s, the article went on to describe the rise of challenges to this pre- oil dominated World which culminated in World War 1 and the following seventy plus years of dealing with that war's consequences. Then the article forecasted there would be some "another challenge" to the  neo-liberal, New World Order of the 1990s.

Here is a short article that identifies this new, expected challenge:  https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/protesters-the-world-over-are-united-in-pushing-back-against-neoliberalism-32058 

An example on ShiaChat is my topic "Equador and Decree 883". The protests current in the Czech Republic, throughout South Amerika, France, West and Southwest Asia and so forth are other examples. Plus a lot of small wars.

And what l think will seriously exaserbate this is Washington blocking the appointment of Appellant Judges at the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Without this function, the WTO cannot function and by default, US hegemonic dominance of international finance will rule uninterrupted by formal challenges and legal processes.

Yarrabi.

 

The neoliberal consensus took over in response to the stagflation from the 1970's when Keynesian economics fell apart. Keynes believed inflation could be dealt with through sound fiscal/monetary policy, so taxes could be raised and government spending slashed to reduce the amount of money people could spend and invest, and interest rates could be raised so it would incentivise saving over investment. However, with unemployment and inflation moving in the same direction, the foundations of the phillips curve (inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation) were undone. So, government policy couldn't really fix what the problem was, because if they raised rates and taxes and curbed consumption and investment, it would create even more unemployment, if they cut rates and taxes, it would create even more inflationary pressure. So the ideas of Friedman and Hayek became more mainstream, they were already imposed on some of the third-world but they rose to prominence under Reagan in the US and under Thatcher in the UK. There was a massive mine worker strike in the UK, it lasted an entire year and Thatcher's government brutally crushed it. 

The Chilean economy is largely seen as a success story but it's important to remember that Chile's economy crashed in 1982, they had to renationalize some of the banks that had been privatized after Pinochet's coup. After the collapse of the USSR, Yeltsin practically drove millions of Russians into poverty that they weren't in back in the early 1990's. I think what you're seeing is a protest against the inequality that these policies create. Some benefit from these policies no doubt, but the presumption that those effects trickle down to all sectors of the society is fundamentally flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The neoliberal consensus took over in response to the stagflation from the 1970's when Keynesian economics fell apart. Keynes believed inflation could be dealt with through sound fiscal/monetary policy, so taxes could be raised and government spending slashed to reduce the amount of money people could spend and invest, and interest rates could be raised so it would incentivise saving over investment. However, with unemployment and inflation moving in the same direction, the foundations of the phillips curve (inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation) were undone. So, government policy couldn't really fix what the problem was, because if they raised rates and taxes and curbed consumption and investment, it would create even more unemployment, if they cut rates and taxes, it would create even more inflationary pressure. So the ideas of Friedman and Hayek became more mainstream, they were already imposed on some of the third-world but they rose to prominence under Reagan in the US and under Thatcher in the UK. There was a massive mine worker strike in the UK, it lasted an entire year and Thatcher's government brutally crushed it. 

The Chilean economy is largely seen as a success story but it's important to remember that Chile's economy crashed in 1982, they had to renationalize some of the banks that had been privatized after Pinochet's coup. After the collapse of the USSR, Yeltsin practically drove millions of Russians into poverty that they weren't in back in the early 1990's. I think what you're seeing is a protest against the inequality that these policies create. Some benefit from these policies no doubt, but the presumption that those effects trickle down to all sectors of the society is fundamentally flawed.

Many of the older generation(s) who lived in the former USSR and Eastern Bloc, including East Germany, say they prefer the old socialist benefits to life under neoliberal capitalism. Plus, they often contrast the moral code of socialism with that of capitalism. Many people often forget that Marxist-Leninist morality, however dressed up in atheistic, materialist garb, was often very similar to traditional religious values: the precedence of collectivism over individualism, sexual restraint, opposition to deviant lifestyles, asceticism, self-sacrifice, etc. Of course, the absence of religion likely led to the erosion and corruption of ideology, which culminated in the elite abandoning socialism for capitalism by 1989–91, if not earlier. The problem with Marxism-Leninism is not its economic basis per se, but its opposition to religious fusionism. History clearly shows that the West hates socialism almost as much as it detests religion, though it is very much at ease with pseudo-"leftist" bourgeois identity mishmash (SJWs and all that), which has nothing to do with the class-based ideology of the old socialist/communist left, though the fake "left" and fake "right" set up straw men and twist language to deceive the simple Western public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Northwest said:

Many of the older generation(s) who lived in the former USSR and Eastern Bloc, including East Germany, say they prefer the old socialist benefits to life under neoliberal capitalism. Plus, they often contrast the moral code of socialism with that of capitalism. Many people often forget that Marxist-Leninist morality, however dressed up in atheistic, materialist garb, was often very similar to traditional religious values: the precedence of collectivism over individualism, sexual restraint, opposition to deviant lifestyles, asceticism, self-sacrifice, etc. Of course, the absence of religion likely led to the erosion and corruption of ideology, which culminated in the elite abandoning socialism for capitalism by 1989–91, if not earlier. The problem with Marxism-Leninism is not its economic basis per se, but its opposition to religious fusionism. History clearly shows that the West hates socialism almost as much as it detests religion, though it is very much at ease with pseudo-"leftist" bourgeois identity mishmash (SJWs and all that), which has nothing to do with the class-based ideology of the old socialist/communist left, though the fake "left" and fake "right" set up straw men and twist language to deceive the simple Western public.

I think there is a problem in that many dismiss Marx as simply being someone whose ideology produced Mao and Stalin, whereas those who actually read Marx would probably realize that he would've probably hated them both. Marx was of the belief that the state cooperated with the bourgeois class to oppress the proletariat. The USSR and Maoist China is largely seen as anti-bourgeois but take the private entities that dominate the Anglo-American political system and replace them with the state and that's what you really had. Ofc they were totalitarian societies in addition to that, capitalism doesn't force you to live in camps, but it isn't as free as people make it out to be either, you don't have freedom to quit if you're working in a sweatshop supporting a family and that's pretty much your only income, so there are differences but there are also ways in which capitalism is very limiting and it can actually be seen as authoritarian except without the state forcing it down your threat, it just mandates obedience out of necessity. 

But not many people know about Barcelona in the 1930's, they had created a type of anarchist society that opposed USSR and also fought against Francisco Franco's fascist bloc. It was brutally crushed though. If you read Orwell's homage to Catalonia, he talks about this and he was a major critic of the USSR. So maybe we can indeed do better than capitalism and maybe we can move toward a different way of organizing society without the state having to get involved and force it. With automation, the green revolution and the internet, we could wound up creating what we call a "zero marginal cost society", meaning that it costs nothing to produce an additional unit of solar power, or another computer and so you don't need to have workers anymore and perhaps with this evolvement we will have moved into what Marx had in mind but it will be more of a natural evolvement. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me do something a little radical --radical in its literal, original meaning, id est working with the fundamental elements.

1] What is the purpose of a gov't?  To promote the competent administration of common concerns.

2] What is the consistent problem with gov't?  Like the Army, it attracts a lot of losers and showoffs. Plus, like any other place money-honey concentrates, it attracts a lot of vermin.

3] Change comes in gov't like a glacier. Laws and regulations do not have a suspense/ending date. How long does a law regulating/controlling horse troughs, bathing in the Tigris or a tax on horse feed need to stay on the books. lf every law -for example- lasted only ten years, then every ten years it will have to be reviewed and voted on again.

4] ln an lslamic state, sharia mostly covers time-independent dictates. Murder is murder, theft is theft and divorce is divorce whether in the 10th Century or now. it does not cover fuel quality  for lamps back when or electricity now. Therefore, admnistrative law and regulations are indepoendent of sharia. To make this simpler, sharia is the law and everything else is administrative regulations and appropriations. A two tiered legal system.

Just four for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I think there is a problem in that many dismiss Marx as simply being someone whose ideology produced Mao and Stalin, whereas those who actually read Marx would probably realize that he would've probably hated them both. Marx was of the belief that the state cooperated with the bourgeois class to oppress the proletariat. The USSR and Maoist China is largely seen as anti-bourgeois but take the private entities that dominate the Anglo-American political system and replace them with the state and that's what you really had. Ofc they were totalitarian societies in addition to that, capitalism doesn't force you to live in camps, but it isn't as free as people make it out to be either, you don't have freedom to quit if you're working in a sweatshop supporting a family and that's pretty much your only income, so there are differences but there are also ways in which capitalism is very limiting and it can actually be seen as authoritarian except without the state forcing it down your threat, it just mandates obedience out of necessity. 

But not many people know about Barcelona in the 1930's, they had created a type of anarchist society that opposed USSR and also fought against Francisco Franco's fascist bloc. It was brutally crushed though. If you read Orwell's homage to Catalonia, he talks about this and he was a major critic of the USSR. So maybe we can indeed do better than capitalism and maybe we can move toward a different way of organizing society without the state having to get involved and force it. With automation, the green revolution and the internet, we could wound up creating what we call a "zero marginal cost society", meaning that it costs nothing to produce an additional unit of solar power, or another computer and so you don't need to have workers anymore and perhaps with this evolvement we will have moved into what Marx had in mind but it will be more of a natural evolvement. What do you think?

The problem ultimately goes back to specialisation and monopolisation. Since the Agricultural Revolution, humans have been divided into classes based on concentration of capital (resources, that is, wealth). Currently, the rate of specialisation and monopolisation is accelerating via innovations, corporate mergers, and the the rise of the globalised service sector. We are entering a post-industrial, post-growth world, hence the rising tide of calls for depopulation, eugenics, and deviant sexual lifestyles, all in the name of “saving the planet” from the human race. Cf. the elite-backed Greta Thunberg effect. Anyway, one problem that afflicts both communism and capitalism is the emphasis on human development. Human development is arguably deadly to both Islam and the planet. Since human beings are naturally weak and prone to vice, human development only increases the power, pervasiveness, and complexity of temptations to vice. To preserve Islam and the planet, human beings should not have undergone the Agricultural Revolution. The creation of private property is itself a source of greed and egoism. So Marxism is as much a solution as capitalism, that is, it is no solution. The only solution is pre-modern, that is, predating the Agricultural Revolution. Keep in mind that human beings, especially primordial ones, once lived for hundreds of years, prior to their deviation from Islam. There is no need for modern technology or medicine or private property at all. Currently, man is only replicating and dividing that which never belonged to him in the first place. Man is not "creating" anything, only engaging in alchemy, that is, rearranging and distorting things and pretending to be the Creator (God).

Quote

Further, it has also been seen that so long as wealth was lacking character was above reproach, life was unblemished, but the moment property and wealth changed into plenty the conduct worsened, character became faulty and there appeared the vice of drink, crowd of beauties and gathering of singing and music. In such a case the absence of wealth was a blessing. However, being ignorant of Allah's objectives, man cries out and being affected by transitory distress begins complaining but does not realise from how many vices which could have accrued owing to wealth he has remained aloof. Therefore, if wealth produces conveniences, poverty serves as a guard for the character.

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-91-praise-belongs-God-who

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Northwest said:

Since the Agricultural Revolution, humans have been divided into classes

In Europe, class divisions began with the chimney --allowing for private heating within stone stuctures.

The Agricultural Revolution as you pontificated did not happen. ln Europe, introduction of the moulboard plough in the 9th Century was the first real change. Plant experimentation during the Age of the Enlightenment, but real change began with mechanization in the 19th Century with horsepowered gearing and stationary steam engines transporatable from one location to another on horsedrawn wheels. Motorization really began in the 1930s with the Ford 40hp tractor able to pull a two-bottomed plow. The Green Revolution (which quickly reached it maximum capability) began in 1950s America with motor power, chemical fertilizer, herbicide and new insecticides. This peaked in the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...