Fascism V Fascism.

[ks.234]

There bloody well is and you know it, otherwise I wouldn't have posted. I've asked repeatedly.

I have posted many definitions before, if you are saying I haven’t then prove it

Before going on to talk about neoliberalism in the same breath, so very definitely linking if not conflating the two.

Yes, of course I was linking the two

You have said a good deal about neoliberalism, you have been the main offender on here for using it as a vague catch-all.

Unless you suggest I define the word every time I use it that is nonsense, I have always used the word in a very particular sense, and referenced that meaning frequently.

This is why I have repeatedly, repeatedly asked for a definition and got everything from denial to "I've told you once " and sneering in return. So once again, finally, thank you.

You’re welcome

 

[stevec67]

I have posted many definitions before, if you are saying I haven’t then prove it

Prove an absence? I would have to quote and then parse every post of yours, out of dozens going back months. Hardly. I have asked you repeatedly for a definition, one quote from you would have done it. But you have failed to do this.

Yes, of course I was linking the two

which is precisely the point.

Unless you suggest I define the word every time I use it that is nonsense,

Obviously not. You may think that I'm stupid, I can assure you otherwise.

I have always used the word in a very particular sense, and referenced that meaning frequently.

No you have not. Otherwise why would I ask? If you have, quote it, or give over and move on.

 

[davidsrsb]

Thanks. Interesting that it is voluntary in most countries and where it is mandatory it is often evaded.

If you are a Muslim, it is a pillar of the religion. There are greedy people everywhere, it takes a certain obsession to become a billionaire. If you don't pay what you should, you are not a Muslim.

 

[matthewr]

Neoliberalism is frequently used in a very lazy, almost Pavlovian, way for sure. But that's ok as we know it's not really being offered as any sort of cogent analysis but rather as a handy way of saying "awful in the same was as previous all governments inspired by Thatcher and Reagan were".

It's also head-scratching to me that people would accuse Starmer of being a neoliberal with any seriousness as he is just doesn't seem remotely ideologically committed to anything let alone very specific ideas from the right wing of mainstream economics. Indeed the main criticism of him I would have is precisely that he lacks *any* ideology which is why he was claiming to be a progressive when Corbyn and the Labour left were the gatekeepers of his route to power and now he is a sort of Crypto-Thatcherite when he thinks the gatekeepers are marginal voters in Nuneaton and the messed up way our free press has been captured by right wing billionaires.

See also austerity which is now permanently added to the lexicon of "bad things" even though I am pretty sure nobody is looking at the numbers and making an actual economic claim. There is as I understand it about £30 to £40bn between the offerings of the two main parties in this election which is real, hard cash and a meaningful difference even if not everything we would want.

Although I do also note both of them seem to be playing the "closing tax loopholes and cutting down on avoidance" card which is of course very much the acceptable in polite society version of the magic money tree

 

[wacko]

Thanks. Interesting that it is voluntary in most countries and where it is mandatory it is often evaded.

Did you read the Wiki link ? It mentions that Muslims give more to charity in the UK than any other group by a significant margin. So we can conclude it is often paid and not 'evaded'.

 

[ks.234]

Neoliberalism is frequently used in a very lazy, almost Pavlovian, way for sure. But that's ok as we know it's not really being offered as any sort of cogent analysis but rather as a handy way of saying "awful in the same was as previous all governments inspired by Thatcher and Reagan were".

It's also head-scratching to me that people would accuse Starmer of being a neoliberal with any seriousness as he is just doesn't seem remotely ideologically committed to anything let alone very specific ideas from the right wing of mainstream economics. Indeed the main criticism of him I would have is precisely that he lacks *any* ideology which is why he was claiming to be a progressive when Corbyn and the Labour left were the gatekeepers of his route to power and now he is a sort of Crypto-Thatcherite when he thinks the gatekeepers are marginal voters in Nuneaton and the messed up way our free press has been captured by right wing billionaires.

See also austerity which is now permanently added to the lexicon of "bad things" even though I am pretty sure nobody is looking at the numbers and making an actual economic claim. There is as I understand it about £30 to £40bn between the offerings of the two main parties in this election which is real, hard cash and a meaningful difference even if not everything we would want.

Although I do also note both of them seem to be playing the "closing tax loopholes and cutting down on avoidance" card which is of course very much the acceptable in polite society version of the magic money tree

*facepalm*

 

[ks.234]

Prove an absence? I would have to quote and then parse every post of yours, out of dozens going back months. Hardly. I have asked you repeatedly for a definition, one quote from you would have done it. But you have failed to do this.

which is precisely the point.

Obviously not. You may think that I'm stupid, I can assure you otherwise.

No you have not. Otherwise why would I ask? If you have, quote it, or give over and move on.

This is getting circular, and what’s more circular from another thread that I started on, er, neoliberalism where you said I have never defined neoliberlaism. If you are going to insist on this line of argument, then prove it.

You have made an accusation, where is your evidence?

 

[ks.234]

Progressive journalists in Britain so easily become willing mouthpieces for mainstream economic lies​

Progressive journalists in Britain so easily become willing mouthpieces for mainstream economic lies – William Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory

Warning: may contain reference to neoliberalism and austerity

 

[davidsrsb]

Did you read the Wiki link ? It mentions that Muslims give more to charity in the UK than any other group by a significant margin. So we can conclude it is often paid and not 'evaded'.

Most people in Muslim countries give willingly. A minority, who are mainly from the very rich class evade it. Love of money is a trap some fall into. The same people often hold the reins of power, the same mentality as many of the UK elite.

 

[stevec67]

Progressive journalists in Britain so easily become willing mouthpieces for mainstream economic lies​

Warning: may contain reference to neoliberalism and austerity

Page not found.

 

[stevec67]

This is getting circular, and what’s more circular from another thread that I started on, er, neoliberalism where you said I have never defined neoliberlaism. If you are going to insist on this line of argument, then prove it.

You have made an accusation, where is your evidence?

Give over and stop being childish. How old are you, 9? You have repeatedly claimed that you have. I've asked for it repeatedly to no avail, this much we know and I can easily prove. If you have, it's easy for you to prove me wrong. One quote. What's more, if you can prove that you have previously defined it, I will apologise for not having seen it and not mention it again. We're done with this. Put up or shut up.

 

[ks.234]

Give over and stop being childish. How old are you, 9? You have repeatedly claimed that you have. I've asked for it repeatedly to no avail, this much we know and I can easily prove. If you have, it's easy for you to prove me wrong. One quote. What's more, if you can prove that you have previously defined it, I will apologise for not having seen it and not mention it again. We're done with this. Put up or shut up.

You are a troll. As evidenced by the fact that even when you get the precise thing you claim to have asked for, you still troll.

You trolled without evidence and cant provide evidence to substantiate your trolling.

As you say, either substantiate your trolling, or stop trolling

 

[stevec67]

You are a troll. As evidenced by the fact that even when you get the precise thing you claim to have asked for, you still troll.

You trolled without evidence and cant provide evidence to substantiate your trolling.

As you say, either substantiate your trolling, or stop trolling

Troll yourself. While we're name calling, you're a child.
One quite from you could end this and get you an apology. But you don't have it, do you?

We're done here. Put up or shut up.

 

[ks.234]

When people use the word neoliberalism they very much know what they mean by it. Those hearing it might hear something different, but that is their interpretation of the word, not what was meant by the person saying it.

Those hearing it might hear some kind of vague meaningless insult, but to project that meaninglessness onto the person trying to discuss an important issue is istm a deflection tactic

The important issue on this thread is the decent into fascism, which given the rightward drift across Europe and the US, is a rather legitimate concern.

For me I think the word fascism could be problematic because one element of the fascism of Germany and Italy was social spending. Having said that, the authoritarianism of fascism is an increasing trend and is also a tendency of neoliberalism.

The bottom line is that the Labour party are definitively neoliberal, they are driven by the ideology of privatisation, deregulation, spending cuts, austerity and the narrative of “there is no money”.

Labour are taking us deeper into the neoliberal project, and we can already see the increasing authoritarianism that has accompanied that move.

Where that eventually leads might be fascism, or plutocracy, or an elected dictatorship, but whatever you want to call it, it ain’t a good place .

 

[Cav]

Did you read the Wiki link ? It mentions that Muslims give more to charity in the UK than any other group by a significant margin. So we can conclude it is often paid and not 'evaded'.

How much the UK residents donate is not relevant. I suggest you tell wiki that their information about evasion is wrong.

 

[ks.234]

Troll yourself. While we're name calling, you're a child.
One quite from you could end this and get you an apology. But you don't have it, do you?

We're done here. Put up or shut up.

You are the one making accusations, you are the one that can’t back them up, you are the one that started name calling again, you are the troll.

You made the ridiculous accusation, you evidence it. All this trolling is because you have made a ridiculous accusation that you can’t substantiate.

The bald arsed fact is that I discussing a podcast* that defined neoliberalism when it came out 2 years ago, and have been reading up on it and discussing it, with definitions quite a bit. Something even you admit, but here you are denying the very thing that you say I have repeated over and over again.

You are simply making stuff up for the purpose of trolling.

Another thread lost to your trolling, well done you.



*for anyone genuinely interested, here is the podcast which is interesting because it comes from 2 presenters from a centre right/right perspective who start off from the assumption that ‘neoliberalism’ is just a pejorative, but do their research and reach very different conclusions

‎Origin Story: Neoliberalism: Everything’s for sale on Apple Podcasts

‎Show Origin Story, Ep Neoliberalism: Everything’s for sale - 26 Jun 2022

podcasts.apple.com

 

[stevec67]

You are the one making accusations, you are the one that can’t back them up, you are the one that started name calling again, you are the troll.

You made the ridiculous accusation, you evidence it. All this trolling is because you have made a ridiculous accusation that you can’t substantiate.

The bald arsed fact is that I discussing a podcast* that defined neoliberalism when it came out 2 years ago, and have been reading up on it and discussing it, with definitions quite a bit. Something even you admit, but here you are denying the very thing that you say I have repeated over and over again.

You are simply making stuff up for the purpose of trolling.

Another thread lost to your trolling, well done you.



*for anyone genuinely interested, here is the podcast which is interesting because it comes from 2 presenters from a centre right/right perspective who start off from the assumption that ‘neoliberalism’ is just a pejorative, but do their research and reach very different conclusions

‎Origin Story: Neoliberalism: Everything’s for sale on Apple Podcasts

‎Show Origin Story, Ep Neoliberalism: Everything’s for sale - 26 Jun 2022

podcasts.apple.com

You're going back to a 2 year old podcast that defined it and claiming their definition, today, as your own? This counts as "told you repeatedly" ? FFS. You couldn't make it up. Except that you have. Like I said, we're done. Put up, or shut up.

 

[Fatmarley]

What's wrong with you two? Thought we were on the same side.

 

[Minio]

It's like the Jerry Springer Show for lefties.
Prime time entertainment.

 

[PaulMB]

What's wrong with you two? Thought we were on the same side.

The Left squabbles, and the Right gains ground.