Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Neoliberalism Dismantles Services to Make Elites Even Richer

By George Monbiot, Comment Is Free. Posted August 28, 2007.


Neoliberalism demands minimal taxes, the dismantling of public services and social security and union busting to make the elite even richer, while leaving everyone else to sink or swim.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Monbiot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

For the first time the UK's consumer debt exceeds the total of its gross national product: a new report shows that we owe £1.35 trillion. Inspectors in the United States have discovered that 77,000 road bridges are in the same perilous state as the one which collapsed into the Mississippi. Two years after Hurricane Katrina struck, 120,000 people from New Orleans are still living in trailer homes and temporary lodgings. As runaway climate change approaches, governments refuse to take the necessary action. Booming inequality threatens to create the most divided societies the world has seen since before the first world war. Now a financial crisis caused by unregulated lending could turf hundreds of thousands out of their homes and trigger a cascade of economic troubles.

These problems appear unrelated, but they all have something in common. They arise in large part from a meeting that took place 60 years ago in a Swiss spa resort. It laid the foundations for a philosophy of government that is responsible for many, perhaps most, of our contemporary crises.

When the Mont Pelerin Society first met, in 1947, its political project did not have a name. But it knew where it was going. The society's founder, Friedrich von Hayek, remarked that the battle for ideas would take at least a generation to win, but he knew that his intellectual army would attract powerful backers. Its philosophy, which later came to be known as neoliberalism, accorded with the interests of the ultra-rich, so the ultra-rich would pay for it.

Neoliberalism claims that we are best served by maximum market freedom and minimum intervention by the state. The role of government should be confined to creating and defending markets, protecting private property and defending the realm. All other functions are better discharged by private enterprise, which will be prompted by the profit motive to supply essential services. By this means, enterprise is liberated, rational decisions are made and citizens are freed from the dehumanizing hand of the state.

This, at any rate, is the theory. But as David Harvey proposes in his book A Brief History of Neoliberalism, wherever the neoliberal program has been implemented, it has caused a massive shift of wealth not just to the top 1%, but to the top tenth of the top 1%. In the US, for instance, the upper 0.1% has already regained the position it held at the beginning of the 1920s. The conditions that neoliberalism demands in order to free human beings from the slavery of the state - minimal taxes, the dismantling of public services and social security, deregulation, the breaking of the unions - just happen to be the conditions required to make the elite even richer, while leaving everyone else to sink or swim. In practice the philosophy developed at Mont Pelerin is little but an elaborate disguise for a wealth grab.

So the question is this: given that the crises I have listed are predictable effects of the dismantling of public services and the deregulation of business and financial markets, given that it damages the interests of nearly everyone, how has neoliberalism come to dominate public life?

Richard Nixon was once forced to concede that "we are all Keynesians now." Even the Republicans supported the interventionist doctrines of John Maynard Keynes. But we are all neoliberals now. Margaret Thatcher kept telling us that "there is no alternative," and by implementing her programs Clinton, Blair, Brown and the other leaders of what were once progressive parties appear to prove her right.

The first great advantage the neoliberals possessed was an unceasing fountain of money. US oligarchs and their foundations - Coors, Olin, Scaife, Pew and others - have poured hundreds of millions into setting up thinktanks, founding business schools and transforming university economics departments into bastions of almost totalitarian neoliberal thinking. The Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and many others in the US, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute in the UK, were all established to promote this project. Their purpose was to develop the ideas and the language which would mask the real intent of the program -- the restoration of the power of the elite -- and package it as a proposal for the betterment of humankind.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: neo-classical economics, neo-liberalism, economy

George Monbiot is the author of 'Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land' (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Neoliberal elite: an oxymoron?
Posted by: ScottP on Aug 28, 2007 4:47 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author repeated refers to the neoliberals as "elites". However, the first definition of elite in my dictionary is "a socially superior group". That would certainly not apply to people who can't figure out that:
- you can't possibly consume $100M in your lifetime no matter how wasteful you are
- if you live in a giant mansion that is run by a staff, it isn't really much different than living in a fancy hotel with an expense account, you sacrifice your private life
- if you insist on surrounding yourself with only expensive things, you've limited yourself from experiencing most of the world
- the ultra-rich have at least as many problems with depression, suicide, etc. (you can't buy happiness)
- the cruelty that you inflict on others while accumulating those riches makes you (and those like you) reviled around the world, regardless of the phoney smiles that your servants may display

And so I must guess that the author is using the second definition of elite: "a powerful minority group". Why would he choose to sully a perfectly good word like elite, which can be used to describe a skilled athlete or person of great wisdom by associating it with neoliberals? Is that caving to their frame?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Clarification Posted by: american
» RE: Webster's Dictionary, Capitalism: Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» You didn't answer anything Posted by: ReallyBearish
Like Red is indicative of an Apple
Posted by: ray burchard on Aug 29, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Avarice obsession to greed is metaphysics conditioned disorder indicative of the human experience and likened by cancer void a nucleus, therefore no DNA to trigger reproduction. Its propagation is then dependent on commendeering a harbinger hoist mindset (that as perceived authority) with their own DNA for the concerted replication of its tentacle doctrines. Leaving in its wade a long list of prior conquests.

Also like cancer, avarice’s progression to greed is something that will require constant management for eradication is not an option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like Red is indicative of an Apple Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Invest in Growth! Posted by: talkville
A new strategy is needed.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Aug 30, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But as the disasters they have caused unfold, the public will need ever less persuading that it has been misled

This may be true and I hope that it is. The only question then will be, "What shall we do about it?". The first thought of many will be armed revolution. This is a suicidal solution. The first thought of many others will be a third party.This is an impracticable solution.

In confronting it, we must recognize that we will never be able to mobilize the resources its exponents have been given.

This is a wise caution.
The people cannot outfight them, militarily, without catastrophic losses. The people can't outbid them in buying our political parties, for one simple reason. The small donations of private citizens are anonymous and the ordinary person can't tie his gift to a particular cause. The millions of dollars raised at fundraisers aren't anonymous, they are donations from an economic class, and they are tied to one common cause, corporate dominance of our government. Politicians know that to keep the money flowing they must follow a course that will lower corporate taxes and increase corporate profits. In other words, they must represent the interests of a minority of contributors rather than the interests of the majority of voters.

A new strategy is needed, a strategy of passive resistance. Politicians need campaign contributions for one reason: to get our votes. If we each would say, to both parties, before the election, "I won't vote for your candidate unless my most important issue is on your platform" then campaign funds would have no value. To get the votes of the people, politicians would have to represent the people. They would have to work for our votes, instead ofworking for corporate contributions.

A strong grassroots movement could take control of the platforms of both parties before the 2008 election. Make your vote count by casting your vote for a candidate who'll represent you or by casting a protest vote against both parties and their corrupted system.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A new strategy is needed. Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: A new strategy is needed. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A new strategy is needed. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: This is an automated response Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A new strategy is needed. Posted by: talkville
justice, power and human nature
Posted by: johngary on Aug 30, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most dangerous social conflicts occur when one class is pitted against another, such as the French and Russian Revolutions.
Soon the United States' middle class will wake up as they lose their houses, their jobs, their health insurance, their ability to send their kids to college. And as they look around and say golly my parents had all that what happened? And yes, as they struggle to pay for skyrocketing food and energy.
The uber upper class has gone too far. Greed unchecked! We have reached the point of no return!
The unspeakable, is now speakable...we are on the verge of a devastating state of Class Warfare and the consequences of the greedy few will shake our social fabric!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: xactly Posted by: Lincoln fan
Neo-liberalism and fascism
Posted by: citizenjoe on Aug 30, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee whiz, what could "neo-liberalism' have to do with that tired old European bugaboo? Well, Bunky, just about everything. "Neo-liberalism" is a misleading term just as was "national socialism". Remember that: Nazism for short. Neo-liberalism is anti-liberalism-- use the taxes from the people to build an enormous national machine for pursuing and maintaining national empire. In that machine the corporations are the economic battalions. The working people are their cannon fodder and they can co-operate with the state and corporate power or starve, for the fascist state is not a nanny, its an imperial war machine. Elections are not democratic- they are plebiscites to decide which one of the pre-selected elite will rule the empire. That is fascism friends. Forget about the bullshit about "totalitarianism"-- that is myth to distract you from the idea of an authoritarian nationalist and corporate empire- the fascist dream!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Neo-liberalism and fascism Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Neo-liberalism and fascism Posted by: leafsong1
» Not quite. Posted by: justaguy
» RE: Neo-liberalism and fascism Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Neo-liberalism and fascism Posted by: talkville
My Democratic/DLC/NeoLiberal state senator
Posted by: sausage on Aug 30, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! After reading this essay the first guy who came to mind is my Democratic state senator. You can tell from my title what I already think of the guy, but he's the darling of the county Democratic apparatus and has his sights set on succeeding our Blue Dog Democrat U.S. Representative.

Now in my estimation guys like my state senator are way more dangerous than a whack-job, wing nut Republican. The reason being these guys are on the right side once in awhile but, then again, a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Currently my state senator's heart is bleeding over the disparity in health care coverage between whites and minorities: "The Commonwealth Fund reported earlier this summer that among adults ages 18 to 64, nearly half of Hispanics (49 percent) and more than one in four African Americans (28 percent) were uninsured compared to 21 percent of whites and 18 percent Asian Americans. " Hey, I won't dispute that, it's true but what's his solution?

"Most significant to eliminating the health care disparity between minority and white Iowans is the principle that “everyone should have a medical home”(emphasis in original). A medical home is a health care setting that provides patients with timely, well-organized care and enhanced access to providers. It emphasizes preventive care, especially in managing and eliminating chronic diseases and ethnic disparities in medical care. Individuals should be able to select their own health care(emphasis added by me)."

After searching the Internet for a definition of "medical home" I could only come up with this bullshit: A medical home is not a building, but rather a team approach to providing comprehensive primary health care services in a high-quality and cost-effective manner.

So he's set up a dog and pony show with a couple of prominent local black politicians and ex-governors Tom Vilsack, failed presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton running-dog, and Republican Terry Branstad, who both sets on the board of one of the state's largest nonprofit health care organization (its CEO BTW pulls down $1.3 million a year) and is president of osteopathic medical college Des Moines University!

So on the one hand my state senator may truly be concerned about the lack of adequate healthcare for the state's African American and Latino population. On the other, however, he can't let his buddies in the insurance industry down. And, since we're the fifth whitest state in the union, should the initiative fail in the upcoming legislative session, he can blame it all on the racist Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Aug 30, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mills used the expression "the power elite" and defined them in his book of the same name. They run the country and ignore the masses. They much approve of continual war because it is very profitable for them .Etc, etc. Read the book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: jbur816
» RE: dick Posted by: talkville
the human need to be respected may hold the key
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 30, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bismark said that politics is the art of the possible. More accurately (as George's article suggests), it's the art of defining what's possible. To say that we can't call upon the resources available to the "haves" and "have mores" is to neglect the power we do have.

The right-wing media does not have total control over what is known about the world. The "mainstream" can't really seen to be too far off from what people learn in other ways. Plays, films and local discussion groups are examples.

There are still elections and people who stand for office must have a semblance of respectability. Michael Moore isn't the only one who can put the pressure on. Let the politicians know that they need to deserve our respect if they want our votes. (Don't you think that an Edwards-Kuchinich or an Edwards-Obama ticket can be a winner? I do!)

The numbers are with us, the cash cows. Think of the things we can withhold (or at least begin to threaten to withhold): our labor, our purchasing, our vote, our deference and even our non-violence if it come to that. Just raising the idea can have some influence. Send the rich the message that they have gone too far.

There is nothing to stop us setting up independent grand juries, especially in the UK where they were abolished by Parliament in 1933 following riots in the streets of London.

Remember the mountains of flowers and notes that appeared ten years ago after Princess Diana died? Something simpler could begin to appear: clear plastic bottles of water to represent virtual tears (notes can be attached).

To be defeatist is to lose without ever bothering to work out a strategy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Strongly agree Posted by: Lincoln fan
Long Curve
Posted by: madmac10 on Aug 30, 2007 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember Dylan: "The loser now will be later to win." What we are witnessing is the anticline of the pendulum. These very people are the descendents of disposessed monarchists. A more correct term for them would be "neofeudalists." The ones who eschewed mercantilism that led to the Enlightenment because it bestowed wealth on those who earned it instead of inherited it--they licked their wounds for generations and waited for the season of revolution and egalitarianism to spend itself out.

So we witness the insidious march of history, my friends. The arc of history is long indeed. Eventually, their season will end as well--it may take just as many centuries, though. And we may suffer greatly before it does. However, I believe that I and my offspring have chosen rightly.

They are weak and we are strong; we will endure the collapse of our infrastructure, economy or even nation; we will find or create our own values, and will continue to share our joys and loves. When we catch them, our knives will drink.

They may be well-educated, but they are stupid; they stubbornly repeat their forebearer's mistakes; they obstinately refuse to acknowledge the truth; and they tenaciously cling to their illusions and ratiocinations. It is fine though, we will make it through as we have for millenia. And, yes, once more after our inevitable victory, there will naturally come a day once again when the greedy, ignorant kleptocratic oligarchs hold the hill.

So let's bless them instead of revile them--it is much more than they would do for us. They are the fire that temper our souls. They give promise to my family, and they will bequeath a storied history in the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consider this
Posted by: american on Aug 30, 2007 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Money equals energy. That's what it is. Give money to a laborer and he will shovel dirt and a hole gets dug. Give money to a programmer and he will tap his fingers and engage his mind weaving a string of code. Give money to a mercenary or an assassin and they will kill people.

Money in reserve is potential energy, also known as power. If you have a million dollars in the bank, you can summon a laborer to dig a hole, a programmer to write code, or an assassin to kill.

If you are the laborer, programmer or mercenary, it is your power and energy. It is your food, water, shelter, and transportation. It is directly related to your physical freedom if you are inside the system. And you are: It is your power and energy and (physical) freedom.

The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

The energy -- the money -- is always there. Right now it is just being allocated to a single group, the self-anointed "elite," to an unacceptable degree.

Money is energy, yes. It is also known as a note. A note is a document. A document is a deed. They all have in common that they are pieces of paper. Money notes could be green. They could be pink. They could be yellow. It doesn’t matter what color they are, does it? What matters about money is what it can do.

What puts it in force? What makes it have its power and energy?

The answer? Energy itself does. Power. Force.

How do power and force come about? Laws and organization (footnote 1).

How are laws and organizations upheld and sustained? Force (footnote 2).

Laws and organizations exist for one of either of two things, money or principles (as in moral principles).

A telltale sign of whether the force is positive or negative is whether debt is required to sustain the organization. Debt occurs where people, I the final analysis, are not willing to take on an obligation all at once. It occurs when they are not willing to pay for, work for, or otherwise buy what is offered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And this Posted by: american
» Notes Posted by: american
Buddy Dyer is excellent example
Posted by: lamar on Aug 30, 2007 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buddy Dyer, the Democratic mayor of Orlando, FL, is a good example of a sleazy neoliberal who cozies up to rich businessmen in spite of pressing problems in the community.

Dyer has been pushing his plan to make billionaire Rich DeVos even richer: Buddy Dyer spearheaded a campaign to funnel taxes collected on hotel rooms into a new arena for the Orlando Magic (even though the current arena is the second highest in revenues in the country). The Magic, of course, are a private business owned by DeVos. If he doesn't have to build a building, he hangs on to $200M or so. Why is Buddy Dyer giving them a building in the hundreds of millions of dollars for free?

Because he's one of these sleazy neoliberals who cozy up to the extremely wealthy while letting the poor suffer. Buddy Dyer banned feeding poor people. 'nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neoliberalism gone wild: Bill and Hillary Clinton
Posted by: peacelf on Aug 30, 2007 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Clinton, that good old boy from Arkansas, was not only secretly working ML in the Oval office, but the american people as well. He fought hard for workers when he passed NAFTA, CAFTA, the telecommunications Act, "ended welfare as we know it," and a host of other neoliberal reforms. However, he didn't get us national healthcare, secure social security, nor did he offer any other populist reforms that would prevent the corporate giants from amassing enormous wealth. AND HE"S A DEMOCRAT?

Now, here comes Hillary, I-have-nothing-against-lobbyists, because they represent "real people" like nurses and social workers (but her record shows she doesn't listen to them?) I'm confused! Nonetheless, Hillary has given us no indication that she is any different than Billy, except for ML.

Cornel West says our political system is run by nihilists. They don't give a shit about anybody, so they go along with whoever keeps them in power, and that's the wealthy campaign donors. Are Americans just gullible, or are politicians that good?

I do have faith in one candidate, though, whose record speaks volumns: Dennis Kucinich. He's the only one with not only the language of the people, but the record of legislation for the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Classic Misdirection by Georgie Boy
Posted by: dover23 on Aug 30, 2007 3:13 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He plays semantic games and states half-truths, lays blame and then draws grand conclusions that just happen to fit the agenda he has made a career out of selling.

Neoliberalism, if unchecked, will catalyze crisis after crisis, all of which can be solved only by greater intervention on the part of the state.

He plays the same game as the MSM... take a complex situation and simplify it for your target audience to soothe their insecurities and make them feel smart.

U.S. Policy has been sold under the guise of neoliberalism but implemented as fascism, made possible by the violently imposed status of the dollar as the official reserve currency of the planet. Monbiot only assists in covering up this crime with his nonsensical drivel about the failures of a free market as if it has even existed.

He suggests MORE power to the state will hurt the elite? What am I missing here people? The elite will always control the levers of power in this country as long as the levers exist! Do the words of the founders of this country mean anything to anybody anymore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creating a "New Elite"
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 30, 2007 5:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as we have people and society, you are always going to have some kind of elite at the top. To pretend otherwise, that some kind of "everyone is equal" and "we all love each other" social organization is possible, with nobody at the top presumably, and that this will ever come about or could even be workable, is just naievete. In a world of billions, levers of power are inevitable and will always be present. However, what can be said for the so-called "neo-liberals," is that "they eat their own" ultimately. Unrestricted greed and with no one to regin things in means that our own elites will turn on themselves. The idealogy of free and unregulated markets is just that, an idealogy, and it won't and cannot work without proper control and regulation in the capitalist workplace and markets. During the Clinton years, more wealth was created than ever before. Elites were glad to pay taxes and contribute to the common good. Now, with the "common good" destroyed and greed elevated to the top of the pantheon, what's left? An existential vacuum, with elites turning on themselves and a concern how to manage the masses of the "poor," and the so-called "dangerous classes" (lower economic strata of society). The idea that you can short them by the way, take away their medical care, their food, and their right to survive, is just a death sentence for everyone, elites included, sooner or later. The solution, you will still have elites, but "the common good," needs to be elevated once again. And, that is the function of good government. Income redistribution, as the successful European states have shown us, needs to distribute at least some of the wealth more fairly across society. And, of course, health care for all and a dismantling of the military/national security state needs to come about. These are all worthy goals for a "true elite," but the idealogy of capitalism or bust and social darwinism (survival of the fittest) needs to give way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

define your terms
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Aug 31, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author mis-uses the word "liberal" to create a false definition for "neoliberalism" - "a political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth." The correct term is "libertarian" - 1. "one who advocates maximum individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: define your terms Posted by: lamar
» RE: define your terms Posted by: talkville
Neoliberalism=neoconservatism?
Posted by: american on Aug 31, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Bush is a neoconservative and Hillary is a neoliberal, are not these political philosophies nearly identical?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the "new liberalism" is like many misnomers in our day; it is Corporatism with a co-opted name...
Posted by: TheProphet on Aug 31, 2007 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So typical is the fascist manipulation of language to take an historically benign form of humanism (liberalism) and turn it into another fascist tool; and fascism is the merger of state power with corporate power -- precisely what we have in America today.

The deception of power today is propaganda; say the exact opposite of what you intend; lie and lie continuously.

Six corporations own 90% of all media in America today.

If this is not a hegemony on information, considering the sheer vastness of media in America, what could be more authoritarian?

Authoritarianism, like the Soviet communist state that dissolved in 1989, failed because it was overtly authoritarian. Today's American hegemony is more sinister because it is always wrapped in a cloak of diversity, giving the appearance of democratic ideals. In reality, however, America's corporate controlled media disallows any sustained dissent to the ruling authorities, namely themselves and their power-sharers in Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet: include a 'neoliberalism=free marketism' disclaimer
Posted by: medstudgeek on Sep 1, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for including foreign articles on this site (God knows Americans don't hear enough about the rest of the world!) but you ought to consider putting a bit at the top explaining that the way 'liberalism' is used in the rest of the world differs from the way it is used here (to mean watered-down social democracy.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alarmed
Posted by: djabooks on Sep 1, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reading Greg Palast's "ARMED MADHOUSE," subtitled "FROM BAGHDAD TO NEW ORLEANS -- SORDID SECRETS & STRANGE TALES OF A WHITE HOUSE GONE WILD." I alternate between laughing and crying as I wade through the true stories of the moves the powerful make in their quest to accomplish what they think is best for America and the world. Long live the "fact-hunters and whistle-blowers" who try to wake us up! Everyone should read this book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch Adam Curtis
Posted by: themotie on Sep 4, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone (and their dog) should see Adam Curtis' documentaries. A basically british viewpoint to be sure, but plenty of Bush, Clinton and Reagan too, and a wealth of historical background.

Adam Curtis Wikipedia entry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's called...
Posted by: bob t on Sep 4, 2007 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the defunding of America, for profit and political power and subjugation of 'we the people'. but then the Catholic Church, my church has always promoted poverty. Justlook at the Latin American countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Progressive," not Liberal
Posted by: halg on Sep 5, 2007 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps we could dispense with all the confusion about differences in the meaning of the term "liberal" on the different sides of the big pond. I call myself "Progressive" to avoid all of this confusion. Let the neocons keep the "L" word for whatever corruption of the language they want.

One comment though:

Nowadays I hear even my progressive friends using terms like wealth creators, tax relief, big government, consumer democracy, red tape, compensation culture, job seekers and benefit cheats. These terms, all invented or promoted by neoliberals, have become so commonplace that they now seem almost neutral.

If you have progressive friends using these terms favorably, then they are probably not progressives and probably not your bosom-buddy friends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]