Is there a way around this? Well, yes, there very obviously is. The answer is actually quite straightforward. If this alienation of vast numbers of people is caused by the fact that the rewards of neoliberal economic growth have not been fairly distributed, the answer is to fairly distribute the income and wealth that now exists.
Income and wealth are massively imbalanced as to their distribution in all the economies I have mentioned, so those who have been left out have begun to feel that they have no chance of sharing in the prosperity which we as countries have generated. Because let’s not dispute this, we are richer than we have ever been, despite all the challenges that we face.
The rise in inequalidee.
So, the US has gone from 0.38 in the 1960s to 0.40 today. A shift of what, 5%? Or two percentage points? In a country which even Spud agrees has become vastly richer since the 1960s?
This is the vast increase in inequality that is driving the arrival of fascism?
Obviously, the alternative could also be true, that the claim is being made by an ignorant.
Like all leftists, he never provides an adequate definition of “neo-liberalism”. For him, it means little more than ‘disagrees with me’. If he’s thinking of the Washington Consensus, who in their right mind would disagree with all or most of its 10 points?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
this alienation of vast numbers of people is caused by the fact that the rewards of neoliberal economic growth have not been fairly distributed
The alienation is a result of a campaign by left to make people believe that relative poverty is more important than absolute poverty.
Looking at the 10 points of the Washington Consensus, here I am thinking neoliberalism might be a jolly good thing to try.
Or does that thought run afoul of the “not true socialism” excuse?
Spud, for one, has a post out there where he insists that the Wash Consensus is a limitation on local economic democracy and is therefore bad/. Sigh.
Don’t forget Murphy channels the famous oft parodied scene from the 1948 Film ‘Treasure of the Sierra Madre’ in his response to those he deems ‘neoliberal’:
Evidence?
We ain’t got no evidence.
We don’t need no evidence.
I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence!”
He has fallen under the influence of Peter Thiel, who is a former director of PayPal and one of its founders and, as a consequence, a multi-billionaire.
Thiel is one of the funders of the ultra-right in America, who take libertarianism way beyond previously known limits. They question the right of the state to exist. It is their aim at all times to undermine its administration. Their belief is that freedom and democracy might well be incompatible. Their goal is to restore the rights of the individual, but they see the individual in question as being a white male.
Whereas you see the only individual who needs to be the subject of wholesale discrimination in terms of relieving him of any rights and confiscating all the property and wealth he has for the state’s purposes as the White Male – despite you yourself being one. And you have an apparent preternatural aversion to those who reject this self-immolation. As for questioning the right of the state to exist – all well and good. Any state that pushes the ‘four horsemen’ of DIE, Big Trans, Net Zero and lockdown is a malevolent entity we’d be well shot of.
Their attitudes on race are atrocious.
Says a fully committed DIE advocate who wants white people of whom he disapproves defenestrated, imprisoned and eventually exterminated.
The consequence has been the rise of fascism. Donald Trump has exploited this. In the UK we are seeing Nigel Farage do it with Reform. In France we’re seeing Marie Le Pen do it. And, of course, the AfD have risen in Germany. In Ireland the reaction is slightly different. The move has been towards Sinn Féin on the left and not towards the right, although there are very nasty right-wing politicians in Ireland who are creating dissent, particularly in areas of deprivation.
Donald Trump is not a fascist. Nor is Nigel Farage. I would also point out the very real anti-semitism of the group Hamas, whose goals of seeing Palestine ‘Free from the River to the sea’ – a metaphor for the extermination of the Jewish population – you are on the record as supporting on numerous occasions – Anti-semitism being a key characteristic of Fascism in general. Perhaps you are the real threat – and merit some earlier assessment of you as the most dangerous man in Britain. As for your eulogy towards Sinn Fein on the ground of their ‘Left wing’ ideology – it’s a grotesque insult to the numerous victims of IRA violence across Northern Ireland and the UK but I guess money from that source is as good as any other if your sole goal is to continue life as a ‘Low Fens Grifter’.
With the demise of Labour as a left-wing party under Keir Starmer, there is now no strong left-of-centre electoral force with the prospect of immediate government in the UK. As a result, people feel that they cannot be represented by existing parties. And unsurprisingly, we see Reform rising in the UK.
The notion that the current Labour party, given its support for DIE, Big Trans, Net Zero and COVID Controls including lockdown is not ‘left wing’ is genuinely absurd.
The challenge is to those who want to stand up for the truth and who draw attention to the potential bloodbath that is planned, because let’s be clear, that is what Trump has promised in the USA if he doesn’t win. All of this, of course, leaves me worried. Why wouldn’t it? Why should anyone not be worried in the face of such risk?
The ‘bloodbath’ quoted was in reference to the loss of jobs in the US automotive industry but of course you knew that – or if you didn’t you’re sufficiently ignorant in terms of basic research to render anything else you say worthless. You also support Net Zero which will involve the similar complete destruction of UK industry and have no apparent plans to replace those jobs. Policies which will almost certainly yield a considerable bloodbath.
I hope that somehow we can get that message about how they are paving the path to fascism through to them.
I reiterate that the choice is a simple one. We redistribute income and wealth, or we pave the path to fascism. That is it.
I know which way I am inclined to go. I want to redistribute income and wealth.
So Despite tax rates being their highest for half a century and the average taxpaying household ponying up £44K for almost no services in any field your solution is to increase the burden still further. I’d say with your profound ignorance and deeply injurious policies that punish the worker and fund the feckless and workshy you bear direct responsibility for the current predicament the country finds itself in and hopefully there will be a time under a Reform or other such administration when the likes of you will be forced to answer for your crimes.
Those who have worked hard and were prudent have benefitted more than those that didnt and werent.
This is clearly unfair to the lazy spendthrifts and so needs correcting for.
The state specifying and compelling who has what money and where and on what it is spent? Isn’t that, y’know…. state control of public and private lives…. the state knows best…. there’s some Italian word for that, begins with ‘f’….
And yet nary a mention of the main reason for alienation of the population of all the European nations. For the RN, the AfD, Reform and all the rest. Which I would suggest is intentional enabling of massive immigration in the face of the wishes of the electorate. All the cenre and left parties have done it. They show by their actions that they despise the people. What is their motive in this? Their arguments are totally bogus, so what motivates then to eschew the easy option of enacting a populer policy despite the electoral penalty?
Does Spud have anything to say about overarching technocracy? Or does he require evidence of what the reast of us can plainly see?
The phone a poor man has is the same as the phone a rich man has, but a poor man will never fly on a private jet, have a private estate, or have staff. Perceptions of inequality have grown as people see the rich more through their preening on social media, even if the super rich remain unseen.
@ Andrew Again
Your categorisation suggests that I am a poor man: I had never realised it before … [I had thought that possession of one linen shirt meant that I wasn’t poor]
The rise in unrealisable expectations and plain greed and envy is causing alienation, with economic factors almost totally irrelevant.
For those with an interest in facts (as distinct from slogans) inequality of wealth decreased significantly under the 1979-97 Conservative government and increased under New Labour. The share of national wealth owned by the bottom 50% of the population peaked under Mrs Thatcher, declined slightly under John Major but remained above the level under Callaghan, then HALVED in seven years under New Labour (after which HM Treasury stopped publishing the data, presumably because Gordon Brown found it too embarrassing so data on the Cameron and later periods are not readily available). Tim may choose to point out that the published data excludes the value of the state pension so Cameron’s largest contribution to equality of income and wealth will be ignored and Sociaists will feel empowered to lie about his legacy.
I have a £250 bike, my neighbour has a £2000 fibre bike. Does that mean the inequality level should be calculated at 8. It shouldn’t be at parity either of course.
He can do in 1 hour what I do in 75 minutes. But my bike is unlikely to be nicked, cause a sleepless night and it can carry 15kg of compost on the pannier. His bike will be worth £1200 resale in 2 years time, mine will be sfa. An inequality level of 2 to 1 sounds ok, but there’s no right answer, and Spud certainly isn’t attempting to compute one. You can do the same with internet, houses, smartphones, cameras and chicken fried rice and a bottle of wine. There’s no way that an 8* pricier product gets you 8* the utility/enjoyment.
” . . . the prosperity which we as countries have generated . . . “
“We.” Herein lies the lie.
Shades of “you didn’t build that.” Sorry, yes, I did build that, and, yes, he did build that other thing, and, no, you had no hand in either yourself at all. But you still insist that it belongs to you.
It doesn’t. High time communism ended up killing millions of communists instead of its victims.
Bongo,
The real difference does only come in at the really tippity top levels.
As in do you have a mansion (in good repair) on a private island, or at least with substantial grounds?
Do you have both country pad and town apartment?
What bike you have matters little if you can afford to own outright, rather than as part of a club, a light aircraft, because it’s likely you can choose to upgrade it without breaking sweat about the impact on your finances.
Etc.
And even that level doesn’t get you necessarily VIP access to Kardashian-level opulence. If that kind of thing is your thing.
Bloke in Germany said:
“Bongo, The real difference does only come in at the really tippity top levels.”
Yes. To me, the big difference comes when you have staff. And I don’t mean a cleaner who is more hassle than she’s worth, but competent people to do stuff for you, to sort out life’s hassles.
Seriously rich bloke I knew, hundreds of millions; it wasn’t his Bentley I thought made a difference (I had cars that cost a couple of thousand but were still fun to drive), or even his house in the South of France (I could hire a holiday cottage when I wanted to go down there). Yes, his stuff was better, but those differences didn’t feel fundamental.
What did seem to make his life different was his secretary.