It has been my view for some time that the neoliberals are profoundly undemocratic and that their project leads to plutocracy, necessarily. To date I have seen very little open admission of this, however. That seems to be changing. While some of us were thinking about different ways of governing it appears that some of them have been doing the same thing. This article from the Adam Smith institute argues that democracy is tyranny: another Orwellian assertion but one which embodies the mindset of those who believe that the state is always and everywhere the cause of any problems
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-gov...t-on-governmentQUOTE
from the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.
Lest we think that this is a fringe opinion let us not forget the sequence of events in the 1930's which led directly from laissez faire economic strategy to the horror of the Second World War: there were many calling for "a strong leader" in that period. They got them in spades.
I have been puzzled by what appears to be the confidence of the neoliberals just at a time when it is obvious that their prescriptions do not work and that the outcomes are exactly the same as they were in the interwar period. In a functioning democracy that should lead to a change of course: instead we see a rush to complete their agenda. I had assumed they knew the game was up and that the aim now was to enshrine their policies in law so that they would be hard/impossible to reverse. The solution to europe's economic woes is now being talked of in terms of greater fiscal (and therefore political) union. Given the "stability pact" that does not seem to imply addressing the democratic deficit in europe: it seems that the direction of travel is the opposite. It is likely that such prescriptions will indeed undermine democracy, since a state which cannot control its budget is no state at all, whether it is a nation state or a much larger entity.
Extremists of all stripes rose in the interwar period and they fought out their differences on the streets and later in the fields of battle over much of the globe: "strong men" did indeed arise and all of them identified the plutocrats as a source of the evil they perceived. The plutocrats of their day are said to have believed that such figures could be controlled and would act to further their interests despite this rhetoric. We are also invited to belleve that they were wrong. I am not so sure, since many of the super rich appear to have done well out of the ensuing war: it may have been coincidence, or maybe not.
What I am sure about is that if you impoverish the majority violent conflict will arise: Ironically I now susbscribe to the view that if we continue on this course There Is No Alternative. I think that this piece from The Adam Smith Institute may well be the shape of things to come, though they remain on the fringes for the moment. If democracy fails the people then they will reject it: and seductive calls like this are one thread in achieving that.
Such an outcome may lead to dictators who are under plutocratic control: or to dictators who are not under the control of the current rich but instead replace them with other unelected people: either way they must destroy the current economic and political arrangements without clearly acknowledging that. War is the very best way to go about that. And at the end we can blame those same strong leaders, and not the figures behind them who make money from blood. They might have to retrench for a while at the end of any such war: but it keeps the story alive by distracting attention from the true source of the catastrophe. They rise again, in time.
In short I do not think that the neoliberals are confident because they believe what they say: I do not think they are enshrining their prescriptions in law to hobble succeeding governments in attempts to reverse what they have done (though that is a handy side effect as we see in Greece and elsewhere: there are no good options at present): rather I think that some of them at least recognise that only war can maintain any semblance of the current mess into the future and that it is a price they are willing to pay
We have an awful lot of stuff glorifying war in the media at present: the excuse in this country is the anniversary of the Falklands war. That may be coincidence, of course. On the other hand there is concern at the level of cuts to the defence budget and it may be argued that speaks to an opposite conclusion. But one of the narratives the UK tells itself about the second war is that the UK disarmed in the interwar period and the axis powers did not: if that were not so we would have won easy
. The UK always honours its decent committments, not like those pesky europeans, after all. So I am not all that persuaded by that, even if it is a fact.
We are also hearing a lot of talk of "german dominance" and that resonates in this country just as it does in others.
In the past I feared war but I could not answer the queston "who would we fight": it tended to weaken my position. Now I have a horrible fear that the answer is "the same people we fought the last time": and that is horrifying
I used to support the European union. It seemed to me to be a good thing for the reasons usually given: that it would make war less likely; and it made sense to break down national barriers in favour of international cooperation and all of that.
I think that many ordinary people subscribed to those ideals and still do: thus the greeks are said to want to stay in europe but to reject the economic horror that currently entails. But the project has been captured by the plutocrats, and the institutions have been subverted to their purposes. I do not think that is reversible in the current situation. It follows that I no longer believe the european union is a buffer against war: I thnk it is a cause of it, instead. If we are to pursue the good things which such a union could theoretically deliver we must dismantle what we have now, and we must do it soon. But if we do it because of the tensions which the economic crisis exacerbates then the push against democracy will continue: and their job has already been done
There is nothing at all inevitable about this set of economic prescriptions as the basis for the european ideal: even if you think it was no more than "getting and spending" (as many in the UK believe: they like economic union but not political union - preferring a "free market" which stands apart from political integration) it does not follow that the economic analysis of the neoliberals is correct. We can make a different choice. That said, I do not think there is anything to be gained by pretending that the ideals which inform most people's committment to a european project are any longer in play: what we have is a very different kind of beastie in reality. If we do not separate those things in our minds we will end in war. Time to take this project back if it is to survive. I see no signs of that and so I am at present entirely opposed to european union. This is sad but I cannot close my eyes to the fact that what most people seem to want has been used to further an agenda which they do not want: it is a mask and what is beneath it is very ugly indeed
