Bread and circuses, without the bread.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

A quote from Greer, and thoughts on same.

"When the neoconservative movement burst on the American scene in the last years of the 20th century, some thinkers in the older and more, well, conservative ends of the American right noted with a good deal of disquiet that the "neocons" had very little in common with conservatism in any historically meaningful sense of that word. In the Anglo-American world, conservatism had its genesis in the writings of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), who argued for an organic concept of society, and saw social and political structures as phenomena evolving over time in response to the needs and possibilities of the real world. Burke objected, not to social change—he was a passionate supporter of the American Revolution, for instance—but to the notion, popular among revolutionary ideologues of his time (and of course since then as well), that it was possible to construct a perfect society according to somebody’s abstract plan, and existing social structures should therefore be overthrown so that this could be done.

By and large, Burke’s stance was the intellectual driving force behind Anglo-American conservatism from Burke’s own time until the late twentieth century, though of course—politics being what they are—it was no more exempt from being used as rhetorical camouflage for various crassly selfish projects than were the competing ideas on the other end of the political spectrum. Still, beginning in the 1920s, a radically different sense of what conservatism ought to be took shape on the fringes of the right wing in America and elsewhere, and moved slowly inward over the decades that followed. The rise to power of the neoconservatives in 2000 marked the completion of this trajectory.

This new version of conservatism stood in flat contradiction to Burke and the entire tradition descended from him. It postulated that a perfect society could indeed be brought into being, by following a set of ideological prescriptions set out by Ayn Rand and detailed by an assortment of economists, political scientists, and philosophers, of whom Leo Strauss was the most influential. It called for a grand crusade that would not only make over the United States in the image of its ideal, but spread the same system around the world by any means necessary. It argued that bourgeois sentimentality about human rights and the rule of law should not stand in the way of the glorious capitalist revolution, and went on to create a familiar landscape of prison camps, torture, and aggressive war waged under dubious pretexts. Neoconservatism, in other words, was not conservatism at all; it was to Communism precisely what Satanism is to Christianity, a straightforward inversion that adopted nearly every detail of the Third International’s philosophy, rhetoric and practice and simply reversed some of the value judgments."

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-of-contemplations.html


It's difficult to imagine a better Soviet double-agent against capitalism than Ayn Rand, Norquist, et al.

By spreading the memes that laissez faire should be taken to absolute extremes instead of capitalism kept functioning with counterbalances, that the state should be 'drowned in a bathtub' and the 'beast starved' instead of used to advance the common good and the free flow of goods, services, and capital, the worst aspects and excesses of the capitalist system are emphasized with predictable catastrophic effect.


"Adam Smith himself is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire. He believes that the market economy he has described can function and deliver its benefits only when its rules are observed – when property is secure and contracts are honoured. The maintenance of justice and the rule of law is therefore vital. " http://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations/

More Smith:
http://www.adamsmith.org/adam-smith-quotes/

And here we are today.

Corporatocracy has usurped the Republic.
Corporations are considered people, my friend.
All branches of government are for sale to the highest bidder.
Mainstream media is owned by those very same bidders, bought and consolidated and un-accountable, with 'entertainment' put ahead of facts and analysis, leaving only propaganda.

As a capitalist, this is anathema to me.

As a citizen, this irresponsible experimenting with critical systems infuriates me.

As one who leans libertarian, the enshrining of power in money instead of the empowerment of the individual (in the name of big-L Libertarianism, no less, and funded so transparently by said big money interests) is a perversion.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, as someone who leans libertarian, what's your answer? Un-personing corporations isn't going to change your most pressing complaints regarding their power and abilities, your idea of government "for sale" won't change either unless you're abandoning the idea of even leaning libertarian, and the mainstream media is a private organization.

So what's the answer?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Un-personing corporations isn't going to change your most pressing complaints regarding their power and abilities

Sure it will. The notion that a corporation is a person is central to the idea that corporate campaign donations are protected speech. Whether you agree with the speech aspect or not isn't relevant. From Teddy Roosevelt (R) in 1905:

"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services."

The Tillman Act of 1907 followed, banning all corporation campaign contributions. Ah, the good ol' days.

One possible solution is to ban pooled contributions as well as limit the amount an individual can donate to a campaign (small dollar donations), or that a candidate can use from his own personal wealth.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Last time I checked what people who call this free speech call free speech the law calls bribery.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

*oh god the boobsmush*

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You should read (if you haven't already) John Dean - Barry Goldwater's book Conservatives without a Conscience, but Senator Goldwater died before it could be finished, and John Dean (co-author) completed it. Goldwater was appalled by the religious right within the Republican party and especially the pro-lifers who claimed they were his followers.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, Dean claims that he and Goldwater were going to write a book like that. Then again, Dean makes the mistake of assuming that if someone calls themselves conservative, they are conservative, which is silly.

I met Dean once following a talk he did at a local university. I wasn't impressed.

[cill-ros.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this - it's a cogent and persuasive explanation of the extreme divide in American politics today.

[taiki.livejournal.com]

Burke objected, not to social change—he was a passionate supporter of the American Revolution, for instance—but to the notion, popular among revolutionary ideologues of his time (and of course since then as well), that it was possible to construct a perfect society according to somebody’s abstract plan, and existing social structures should therefore be overthrown so that this could be done.

Best rebuke of radicalism ever.

I consider myself a moderate, I'd rather have reality than dogma. Of course this leads me to very liberal ideas, but the notion we can have a perfect society that works based on an abstract plan is ridiculous on its face and dangerous when it's a plan to be implemented.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

, I'd rather have reality than dogma. Of course this leads me to very liberal ideas

How does this work?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Of course this leads me to very liberal ideas, but the notion we can have a perfect society that works based on an abstract plan is ridiculous on its face and dangerous when it's a plan to be implemented.

Since liberal ideas are often exactly that, how do you reconcile the contradiction?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

A cut might be good, thanks mate!

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Conservatism has been quite radical lately.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I hate tinfoil hat thinking as a matter of course, but noting what you did about Soviet secret agents leads me to remind people that the Neoconservative movement began when a bunch of ex-Communists converted to Right-Wing ideology. Of course these guys were Trotskyists, not actual Soviet-style Communists, but it's certainly a question to consider when it comes to Neconservative policies. It's also worth considering that the people attracted to certain ideologies only change the details of their belief, not the overall structure or framework undergirding them.

Thus the resemblance to Communism may be less co-incidence and more the great irony of supposed neo-conservatism being neither new nor in a sense conservatism as it was once understood.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I've always understood "neoconservatism" as a consequence of foreign policy and history in and following WWII. Neoconservatives were dismayed by the anti-war bent they saw in left-wing circles. They had grown up on the bread of Team America and the holy crusade and American exceptionalism. The idea that they weren't here to save the world was anathema. So they drifted away from the American Left, sort of fulfilling their own prophecies.

As for where it all stands today, neoconservatism was greatly damaged by the legacy of the Bush administration, and today instead we have a reactionary conservatism, with the distorted and bloated obsession with "debt" that, in the past, occupied a small part of conservative platforms, but now today is becoming the core aspect of the movement.

Given how GWB pretty much destroyed neoconservative foreign policy as a viable candidate in national politics, there isn't much left to turn to, except "fiscal" concerns.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

We knew that neoconservatism was similar to sovietism. This post has the merit to make clear how.

PS : too bad there's no English subtitles for this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wprU4tc6kRk).

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

by following a set of ideological prescriptions set out by Ayn Rand and detailed by an assortment of economists, political scientists, and philosophers, of whom Leo Strauss was the most influential.

He was going so well until he got to this point.

He believes that the market economy he has described can function and deliver its benefits only when its rules are observed – when property is secure and contracts are honoured. The maintenance of justice and the rule of law is therefore vital.

That is exactly what laissez-faire capitalism is, only that. When you have gov't doing more than just that, that's when you have problems.

As one who leans libertarian,

You don't show it.

(in the name of big-L Libertarianism, no less, and funded so transparently by said big money interests)

That's where you miss the mark. Neoconservatives name drop anything they can to gain legitimacy. You're just perpetuating the myth and helping them out.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Neoconservatives are the boomer-bred "fuck you, got mine" crowd that is split into two types of people: The kind that doesn't know what it's like to be poor and the kind that watches Fox News and was hoodwinked into thinking they were going to be rich someday.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

'reality' is easy when you can pigeon hole entire groups of people into narrow bands of existence.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

I think debates about regulation get too polarized for the most part. One side says "REGULATION!!!" and then proceeds to masturbate vigorously at the thought while the other says "LAISSEZ FAIRE!!!" and also proceeds to masturbate vigorously(with an Invisible Hand presumably lol).

The debate shouldn't be "Regulation: Yea or Nea" but "Regulation: How Much and Which Policies?"

lol but of course, that'll never happen.

Actually, that's always the argument I put forward.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

How much? Just enough and no more, well thought out and lean but effective, with enough teeth to do the job.

IA

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

also, this comment made me lol.

My requisite Ronulan post

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

I never thought of looking at neoconservatism as the antimatter inverse of communism, but it makes sense. Communism wants to unite the world under a workers' state--neoconservatism wants to spread democracy (isn't that called "messianic democracy" in some texts?) It's also very firm on making sure everyone has the same cultural values, in direct opposition to cultural liberalism, which I feel is absolutely essential for a modern society.

I agree there should be some basic rules--but unfortunately, those rules have been run completely roughshod over by monied interests. Yes, I'm a libertarian too, but I recognize that what we have today is not capitalism, but corporatism, and right now we're being run by banks.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are currently the biggest proponents of this, the Republicans are pretty much refusing to nominate anyone who has any shred of rationality or honesty on the subject, and we don't yet have a third party that can challenge either of them (which is why I feel we desperately need approval voting. (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/8845-real-reform-begins-in-the-ballot-box)) I'm optimistic for the future, but only in the long-term. Short-term, we're screwed.

Anyways, if you want to hear more libertarians lamenting about big business, you should read Karl Denninger over at The Market Ticker (http://www.market-ticker.org), but be warned: that man turns ranting into an art form.