Clearing My Head.....

Neoliberalism needs some explanation. It has a long history, despite the “neo” (new) post-tag. Libertarianism started with the rise of the Industrial Age and has continued to the present, with some minor modifications. As the profit margins of the wealthy began to increase, so did the amount of tax levied on them. This called for some radical thinking for the nouveau riche. Up to the time of industrialisation politico-economics was rooted in the feudal system. Most of the land/agricultural-based wealth was owned by a few aristocratic families. Industrialisation was creating profits away from traditional sources and so began the birth of consumerism. People who once worked on the land or in small cottage industries, moved into burgeoning cities to work in factories in the hope of making more money. Factory work, early mass production techniques and fast terrace-style house building led to a decrease in skills for many of the workers encouraged to work in these conditions. Some problems arose as a small number of “commoners” began gaining wealth through entrepreneurial business acumen. Wealth was no longer the domain of the aristocracy.

“Globalisation”, as a concept, appears new. But it also has a long history. When considered in the light of Empire building, it dates back thousands of years. International trade routes were established by the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Danes, Chinese and any other country with an army and navy! The British Empire encapsulated nearly a third of the globe by the onset of industrialisation. Fabulous wealth was not unheard of for the aristocrats and royalty. But it was now available to entrepreneurial commoners. In some ways, to maintain the status quo in society, many royal orders were bestowed on rich industrialists such as knighthoods and lordships, carrying additional 'rights' in law along with land allocations. (Viewed in this way feudalism is not dead!)

Libertarianism is a means of maintaining the old system which, burdens the taxation needed to finance the country's infrastructure onto the “peasants”, whilst luxuriating in the wealth “earned” through the exploitation of those same “peasants”, who's lives become superfluous, needed only to enrich the already rich 'upper' classes. Just as they have been throughout history. But there was a fly in the ointment! For a workforce to be effective, some education was required, at least to a basic level. Some reading was needed, as was some basic mathematics to run new machinery and to calculate the most productive methods. How far could industrialists go in educating the masses? History shows that, for its needs, it probably went too far!

In the hub of industrialisation in Britain, Manchester, people began to feel the pressures of exploitation. Some organised themselves and marched onto the town centre, en-masse, to protest at the levels of poverty they were experiencing, only to be brutally rebuffed by the local government of the day who ordered the heavily armed Hussars into the crowd. Some 80 unarmed people were murdered and many more were seriously injured. It became known as the Peterloo Massacre. Such was the embarrassment felt by the government that new laws were introduced to give workers more rights. This saw the beginnings of the left-wing Charteris movement which, in turn, led to the birth of unions and the Labour Party. An educated labour-force meant more consideration had to be afforded to the working classes.

Education, as anyone would agree, should be a right for all. However, there is education and education. What do you teach people who are only expected to work to make wealth for the already wealthy? Firstly, 'obedience'! The education system for the masses have many things in common with 'work'. They have a regimented day. A clear 'start-time', a 'break' in the morning, 'lunch-time', and an afternoon 'break'. Then a clear 'finishing' time. It also promotes blind obedience to “the rules”, which includes subservience to the authority of the teacher (boss)! The teacher also answers to the Head, who answers to higher authorities! A reflection of the working world we know. As to the lessons taught. Here we have an issue. Recent research has shown that schoolchildren of the great Western powers are lagging behind their Far Eastern cousins. Why would that be? Surely we have access to the same books and information? It boils down to the methods. Our pupils are taught (chiefly) by rote. They are taught just to 'remember' certain facts and figures with neither comment nor critical thought. In fact, for many who reach Further and Higher education, one of the first lessons taught is how to think critically! Is it surprising then, that when they reach Higher Education, we see more student activists becoming aware of political inconsistencies?

Neoliberals are trying to address this issue by restricting student numbers through financial constrictions and tougher entry requirements. But what about those privileged enough to reach the 'Oxbridge' standard? Their education bears a more philosophical slant. But the philosophy is rooted in the Libertarian ideology. The analogy of their economics takes the form of the “feeding the pony” theory. Feed the pony enough oats and, eventually, what it excretes will be enough to feed the sparrows! Hayek used the “cascading-down” effect of making the rich richer. “Wealth creation” is the province of the already wealthy. To create jobs for the workers, entrepreneurship is the first requirement and should be fully rewarded. Taxing these individuals only de-motivates them and suffocates innovation, (apparently). Secondly, investment from all sources should be encouraged. Taxing these individuals (or corporations, treated as individuals in law) would be equally disastrous for the economy because their returns would be less attractive! These concepts are the fruits of the London School of Economics (LSE), and the Chicago model of economics. The proposal being that “market forces”, unhindered by human intervention, would drive the economy in an upward sustainable trajectory. We could all be wealthy! All it requires is individual effort. Human failings are the result of individual choice. Thatcher famously stated; “There is no society. Only the man, the woman and the family!” By which she meant, we should all, individually, take responsibility for our successes and failures. 'Choice' was open to all.

The logic is very seductive – if you're already financially secure! The philosophy has much going for it. Firstly, as individuals we have to seek out the opportunities available to us, have the temerity to take them and the tenacity to see them through. Once duly rewarded for our efforts, we can take pride in our achievements at beating the opposition. Can you see a problem with this? Let's carry on. “Market forces” refers not just to “pricing” in a consumer-based economy, but to workers' wages and rights. If a potential employee seeking employment in a factory/store/telephone exchange, or whatever, finds that the pay and conditions do not match his/her requirements s/he goes elsewhere, leaving the potential employer bereft of a possible good worker. The employer, upon receiving several rebuttals for his/her vacancy must then reconsider the employment pay and conditions to attract workers. So the theory goes! Hayek and his ilk believed that some “invisible hand” would govern pricing, workers' pay and conditions and all social interactions if left unrestricted by governments and their pesky laws! We would all “find a level”.

There is a major flaw in the theory which, incidentally, is the same flaw used to describe Socialism's perceived failings. Human greed! Hayek argued that Socialism could not work because it would require too much government intervention leading to a totalitarian state. Intervention in Socialism, he argued, would be necessary to control a basic human failing – greed. His model would be self-controlled by societal pressures. Which is unmitigated, paradoxical nonsense! A case of cognitive dissonance. If we are to rely on individual choice and effort, if “there is no such thing as 'society'”, then what does control it? What we are seeing today is the result of unregulated human greed in action!

The obvious fact of individualisation is that “competition” produces winners and losers. In many competitive endeavours there can only be one winner. What then happens to the many “losers”? In competitive business practices the most ruthless and deeply egocentric competitors become the “winners”. People not averse to the most brutal and dishonest tactics to succeed. The more emotionally mature, honest and considerate “losers” are left to make the best of what they have.

Neoliberal “leaders” have created a dynamic which has allowed corporations unfettered access to all the money accrued by workers' efforts over generations. Untaxed and hoarded (human greed?) leaving less available to those who actually earned it, and denying the “choices” supposedly available to all through education, entrepreneurial innovation and investment. Basically covering any competitive threat! It never worked during our feudal history, and it doesn't work now! For its success, human greed needs to be fed at the cost of those unable to topple their authority. Inequality has to be maintained as an indicator of the level of success! How else would one measure success? Winners and losers! The more losers there are, the “stronger” the “winners” appear to be! If people are starving to death, how great must the feeling of “victory” be? Narcissism is boosted and the “fight” continues. “To the victor, the spoils!”

Ultimately, the only direction unbound neoliberalism can take is total global domination for the few “strong” individuals who have destroyed all potential opposition. Until that time, each country that falls to the victors can only be perceived as one small battle. We're rapidly approaching a global business deal that takes away democratic rights of everyone in their own countries! Most of these “trade deals” are done in secret. Why? Because if the masses read and understood the terms of these agreements they would immediately reject them! “Free trade” means corporations can impose their own rules to the terms of purchase and sales of goods and services. They cannot be controlled by any country's incumbent government! So, for example, if there were environmental issues that people objected to, hard-luck! If it impinges on the rates of profits sought by corporates, then they can legally sue the government for those losses! New trade agreements are being sought across the globe that are even more restrictive to the peoples of all our countries! Again, being sought secretly!

There is a war occurring that we're mostly blind to. It's a class war. We're heading towards a world dominated by the rich elite and we, the rest of us, are being seduced by false promises. The mantra of “hard-working people” used by the Tories is a distraction. Aimed chiefly at the ill-informed 'middle-classes' who are more likely to vote for them, it attempts to resonate with the truly hard-working poor who are barely making ends meet. For election victory in the current electoral system only around 30% of the vote is necessary. With media saturation showing the “positives” of neoliberalism, and the threat that “there's no alternative” to it, because the bankers and corporates would bankrupt economies should they fail, people are blinded to any possible alternatives. We've also been seduced by “stuff”! Consumerism is the method by which economies are said to benefit. So we should all be consumers of goods, services, education, health, security and anything else that can be sold! Which is something of a paradox for most of us. How, if we're under-, or unemployed are we supposed to pay for all this “stuff”?