Zoe Williams made an interesting point in a Guardian article this afternoon. She said:
The only way you c[an] escape [right wing] censure would be to have never had any political views about anything, and to have sprung, fully formed, into your opinionless existence without the hindrance of parents or other antecedents.
I suspect Zoe knows only too well how resonant those words are. This is, after all, what the neoliberal view suggests to be the true. Those of this persuasion do not think they have political opinion. They think they are followers of a natural truth.
They therefore, apparently genuinely, believe that they do not express political views when, for example, saying that markets can provide the answer to all problems.
Nor do they think as a result that they offer political opinion when they say that those who have failed (as they see it) in the market place should not be offered support since that upsets the natural order that is meant to happen.
This, they maintain, is objectivity and so valueless.
Most economists, of course, suffer from this opinion. But so now do a great many politicians and this thinking has permeated much of government.
That is what the neoliberal project intended. It is not just about economics; it is about changing our whole perception of how we live.
The consequences are obvious, but to take a simple example, the deeply right wing Institute for Economic Affairs is a charity because it, apparently, does not offer political opinion and yet to question the role of the market is, apparently, political. The dichotomy is obvious, unless of course, you're a neoliberal. Then it's natural.
It's also completely wrong.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Yes, an extremely simple but very insightful observation from Zoe, Richard, as is often the case nowadays, I have to say.
Also worth noting that this same supposedly “objective”, “value free”, non-political deception underpins and informs the Daily Mail’s latest smear campaign against several prominent Labour politicians (a campaign I’m sure we’re set to see continue, politician by politician, until the election).
Just as being a Marxist must by definition mean that Ralph Miliband hated Britain (and thus unsubtly implying the same for anyone who is similarly left-wing), so it also follows that if you work(ed) for an organisation that campaigns for civil liberties it must follow that you are an ally and supporter of paedophiles (again, unsubtly implying that the same applies more generally if you are left wing/a social liberal).
But note that the Mail web site publishing pictures of young girls in not much clothing – as Harriet Harman has had the guts to point out – is completely innocent and value free. Indeed, I understand the Mail web site is well known the world over for its scantily clad content. Of course, because I’m classed as left-wing making that observation is political, whereas the Mail’s use of such images is entirely untainted.
Unfortunately the “politic free” deception and double standard, runs deep in the UK. That is beyond doubt and visible daily. But where I disagree with you is the extent to which people of a right-wing/neoliberal bent think they don’t have or promote political opinion. I accept a lot do – my grandfather was of that ilk. But the people who work for the IEA, or Cameron, Osborne and co, the Governor of the BoE, or even the staff of such organisations as the CBI. In my experience they know full well what’s political and what’s not. But they also know the value in continuing to maintain and act within the non-political deception that has been manufactured over many decades and more. This is a priceless asset, and absolutely essential to maintaining the hegemony of the elite over the citizens of the UK.
All good points
I accept your qualification of my point
Ivan and Richard – I think I’ve said before that the Right (certainly the contemporary, mainly neo-liberal) operates on two key axioms:
1) The “double double standard”, which runs “We [the Right] are allowed doubles standards, you [everyone else] are not”
2) This is derived from the truly foundational Right-wing argument, the “argument from nature”, which says that Right-wing ideas are “natural” (Darwinian? In accord with human nature? etc.) and so are not truly political. Things only become “political” when they depart from this “natural order of things”, i.e become aberrant, or even deviant.
Of course, once you can characterize your opponent as aberrant, or – better still – deviant, then it’s easy to persecute him or her, even to the point of mortal/fatal persecution.
Given that the appalling Theresa May has said that a Tory Government post 2015 will repeal the Human Rights Act, withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and bring in a new “Bill of Rights”, I think that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their warped vision of “natural”, should tremble in their shoes, I quite expect such a Bill of Rights to be the legislative crystallization of the neo-feudal project, with a new definition of citizen (= a member of the 1%) and subject (anyone else), with an effective ban on Trade Unions and any form of free expression that dares to call into question the “natural” right of the 1% to rule over, and batten on, the 99%.
The 2015 General Election really will be, IMHO, the “last chance saloon” for anything remotely resembling a liberal democracy in the UK.
Andrew
I agree with you
Richard
Richard, it seems to me that we’ve just heard a foreshadowing of my thesis in Grant Shapps’ preposterous attempt to re-brand the Conservative Party as “the Workers’ Party”.
This might seem risible, except that the Tories have already re-defined “workers” as being the “hard-working people – the workers and strivers” who support the Coalition’s Alice-in-Wonderland economics and “philosophy” (a misnomer, even an oxymoron), as contrasted with the “spongers and skivers”, sucking at the teat of welfare dependency, and living off the stae.
How easy to move to the next stage, and award the “workers” with rights and recognition, those right to be withdrawn from, and denied to, the “spongers and skivers”. I confidently expect the Tory Bill of Rights to propose loss of citizenship rights to persons in receipt of Benefits, for example.
Andre -this must be one of the most egregious examples of semantic reversal in history-a neolib dictionary should redefine the lexical items:
Worker – A person who is constrained to work long hours, have their wealth syphoned by land/housing/ costs all controlled by big finance who launder the wealth in eternal rehypothecation.
Benefit Claimant – a psychological spittoon who must face the wrath of the above worker who has been fed simplistic myths about debt and money creation by grubby politicians who rely on the zombification of the general populace. Variants: Scrounger/Skiver/Those with their blinds closed in the Morning/Those that get up in the morning.
‘Doing the Right Thing’ acting in the manner of the ‘worker’ above without complaint or protest. Vacuus and condescending phrase used by crass and morally numb Prime Minister who is a puppet of big finance.
Was Churchill a neolib?
The War experience was far from Neo-Liberal as it awakened people to the possibility of collective effort over private profit -Churchill was affected by this -pray we don’t need such terrible wake up calls again, I fear we might.
When he was a Liberal he supported, wrote, about land value tax (very non neolib) but he never mentioned the idea after reverting to his true home.
The BBC is now so dumbed-down you can’t expect anything from it other than caricature by interviewers that don’t know how to ask questions -for me the BBC is unwatchable-remember the sylph-like Flanders (Deutche-bank) and faux-pugnacious Paul Mason all form without content. I now watch RT/Al Jazeera-maybe its only a matter of time before the neo-lib project has captured them (already happened?).
Part of the problem of nailing a definition of neo liberal is the same as for any wide spectrum label, socialist for example. However, the version that our current politicians use is that taught on PPE degree courses (count the number of MPs holding one) and that derives from the work of Robert Nozick. Nozick’s inspiration is not, sadly, Darwinian it is derived from Immanuel Kant’s second principle. This is coupled with the teachings of John Locke contained in ‘Two Treatises of Government’. Nozick provided a closely argued exposition of the benefits of libertarianism unfortunately it was devoid of an explanation of the mechanics involved in divesting ourselves from the flawed concept of democracy, to its clinically logical antithesis demoktesis. The absence of explanation renders libertarianism theoretical we are living the experiment intended to give it validity.
I recently withdrew from a postgraduate philosophy degree course because of the propagandising of the libertarian cause. From eight texts of required reading, seven were neo liberal and one was not (John Rawls — A theory of justice). Attempts to widen the range of cited communitarian texts resulted in low marks and comments such as “irrelevant” and “this is politics not philosophy”.
I feel there is a correlation between the adoption of Politics, Philosophy and Economics as the de rigueur qualification for a political career and the rapid advance of libertarian gains. I cannot shake the suspicion that some kind of quid pro quo exists twixt beneficent corporations and ambitious faculties. It is a situation that holds real danger.
Your last para is spot on
And all philosophy is political
Bill. Would you mind telling me at which university that was? If not on here then off list (I’ll give you my email, if you indicate yes). Thanks.
I was (very) surprised to find myself reading an article on Conservative Home website last week (surprised like a Polar Bear waking up in Bermuda that is), having followed a thread about the paucity of IMF financial forecasting. What surprised me more was the general thrust of the comments left by the readers, mainly bemoaning the hijacking of their party by the neo-liberal right. Now, it may of course be the case that this bastion of Tory activism has itself been hijacked by left-wing agents-provocateur, or it could, more likely be that there are a significant group of the Conservative Party’s natural constituency with whom the neo-liberal agenda sits very uncomfortably. The laissez-faire market doctrines of the current leadership are certainly at odds with you (if not antithetical to) much of the old-fashioned patrician conservatism of many Tories. That is not to say of course that they won’t still turn out at the polls for their party. But it is worth remembering, I think, that Blair did a great deal of damage to Labour Party grassroots support. If nothing else it opens the door for an even more schismatic future for a party already tormented by the shadow of UKIP, and ever more reliant on the support of the vested interests in the City.
I offer this merely as the observation of one who has come to (perhaps mistakenly) conflate neo-liberalism with Conservatism. Perhaps there is hope yet.
There was once a tradition of One Nation Tories
And it was an honourable and fair one
Thatcher killed it using a now familiar technique – they were ostracised as ‘pinkos’
Yes-If I remember they were called ‘wets’, particularly people like the recently deceased ian Gilmour and francis Pym.
The clear problem for me today with the current neo-liberal consensus is that they see no reason to cast any vision. In their world there is no need, which is why we have politicians who cannot communicate on that level. Those who do have some form of communicative skill speak from a place of fear, not a place of hope.
The problem is that without a clear vision we die.
Agree
Neo-liberalism is about making quick decisions based on system 1 thinking about money that don’t stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Examples are the bedroom tax, the proposal to make claimants pay for benefit appeals and one of the biggest, the £50 billion economic blunder fit for Raffles and his chums, known as HS 2.
while on the subject of poor monetary decisions, this episode of the BBC’s “Trusty Steed Horizon is interesting viewing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03wyr3c/Horizon_20132014_How_You_Really_Make_Decisions/
By the end of the programme, I swear that I could hear the hammering of nails into a coffin containing the “Rational Markets” theory so beloved of neo-classical economics which underpins neo-liberalism 😉
It was an excellent programme
Bearing in mind Section 5 of your new comments policy, I am presuming to claim that the right wing ‘think they are followers of a natural truth’ as you do in thsi post is not ironic? (Especially in the wake of your comment to Ironman that ‘there is no debate’)
There is no debate because those who think they follow a ‘natural path’ do not debate; they assert repeatedly