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”?
