Slavoj Zizek on Trump & Fake News

[french frank]

It isn't a question of "equating" socialism with authoritarianism, and it seems reasonable to see collectivist doctrines as implying a degree of discipline on its adherents (pace a certain gentleman's predisposition to 'rebel'). But that isn't the same as imposing discipline on others, the population in general. Yes, liberalism seems to conjure up very different ideas in different people (individual freedoms, social liberalism, neo-liberalism, the Coalition) which create huge divisions among those who would count themselves 'liberal'. Socialism seems to me (a non socialist!) to be too defined for 'liberalism' to be equated - as Beefy does - with 'socialism. Yet arguably agreeing an iron definition from which no deviation is possible is a) authoritarian and b) necessary for political success.

Has not authoritarianism got something to do with being raised to be able to negotiate the ways in which power is exercised within given structures or modes of being-with-others which function either by maintaining or changing its exercise? Authoritarianism defines itself through these relationships, either in the transmission of knowledge or consisting in protocols governing social admissability; it's flexible inasmuch that truths can change, but inflexible when for reasons of maintaining structures of unequal power truths are not to be questioned. The admittedly subjective reason that I would not equate socialism with authoritarianism is that, whatever its record, it was socialism, or socialist ideas, that best challenged the received wisdoms about "freedom" and "choice" on which I was brought up, and which to my mind continue to bedevil the ways in which we live. We are forced to negotiate whatever happen to be the governing protocols of a given society, or willy-nilly, whatever the outcome, be left powerless on the outside. If in voting by majority for strike action in the face of a mass redundancy situation, those not seen to stand by their workmates by ignoring the vote result and strike-breaking might be portrayed by a media that decides strike action of any kind as at best self-defeating as victims of any consequent ostracisation that may be deemed authoritarian. Arguments as to individual moral choices to be made then devolve onto much bigger questions, which in turn are either misrepresented or ignored, because the overriding framing context is one of divide-and-rule, so that those same issues can never be considered in any way, let alone in any depth. Ken Loach's dramas are centred on how people try and cope with issues such as these. However, to me, were socialism ever to ossify to the point where its authority was not allowed to be open to question, then it would no longer be socialism. Liberalism can mean almost anything, from Adam Smith's belief in the unrestricted market being the ultimate guarantor of individual freedom to the Liberal Party's espousal of legality in the use of cannabis.

[Lat-Literal]

I've just noted that phrase:

"Liberalism can mean almost anything, from Adam Smith's belief in the unrestricted market being the ultimate guarantor of individual freedom to the Liberal Party's espousal of legality in the use of cannabis".

Surely they are on roughly the same libertarian part of the spectrum.

Have you seen where the big-money-in-anticipation is these days?

(when it happens expect sweet daisies on the tin for half a century and then a dramatic shift to terrorizing body parts)

[french frank]

Surely they are on roughly the same libertarian part of the spectrum.

Only very roughly. Libertarians favour as little government intervention as possible - hence privatisation etc. I've never been clear what neo-liberalism is, but it doesn't sound very liberal to me.

[Lat-Literal]

Only very roughly. Libertarians favour as little government intervention as possible - hence privatisation etc. I've never been clear what neo-liberalism is, but it doesn't sound very liberal to me.

I agree with you on neo-liberalism and don't see any difference between that and neo-conservatism, whatever that is.

But:

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/09/28/hillary-clinton-marijuana-george-soros/64146/

https://wakeup-world.com/2016/07/20/monsanto-big-pharma-george-soros-and-the-push-to-legalize-marijuana/

https://www.coloradopotguide.com/

That looks like minimal intervention and major privatisation to me. Trump has also said he supports states’ rights on marijuana issues and that he would not use federal authority to shut down existing markets. In other words, it is cross-party and in truth it has been internationally agreed just as was climate change policy, gay marriage, the smoking ban, you name it. It is simply being introduced at a steady pace. Some of the developments are for the good. Others are not for the good. The voter, though, doesn't generally come into it.

(hashtag "Icke was slightly right after all")

[aeolium]

I've never been clear what neo-liberalism is, but it doesn't sound very liberal to me.

It certainly has unimpeachable liberal origins, initially from the classical liberal economics of Ludwig von Mises, and followed by two other Austrian thinkers, Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper. As an ideology it came about as a reaction to the philosophies of totalitarian state control of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. There has been a study of these thinkers and their followers by Daniel Stedman Jones, The Masters of the Universe.

This article seems a good brief survey:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

As you suggest, there are aspects of the neoliberal programme that require very illiberal methods of implementation, but that doesn't alter the fact that the origins of the ideology were in economic and political liberalism.

[Lat-Literal]

It certainly has unimpeachable liberal origins, initially from the classical liberal economics of Ludwig von Mises, and followed by two other Austrian thinkers, Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper. As an ideology it came about as a reaction to the philosophies of totalitarian state control of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. There has been a study of these thinkers and their followers by Daniel Stedman Jones, The Masters of the Universe.

This article seems a good brief survey:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

As you suggest, there are aspects of the neoliberal programme that require very illiberal methods of implementation, but that doesn't alter the fact that the origins of the ideology were in economic and political liberalism.

Well, yes, that is not a bad article, Hayek et al - and also a reminder that Healey was latterly the first monetarist Chancellor. Perhaps on reflection the last Social Democrat PM was Wilson rather than Callaghan in the round. “My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”. Really. No mention, alas, of Golding's "Lord of the Flies". So much for the thinkers! I do disagree with several points in the article. First, the term "neoliberalism" did not disappear for a long period after 1951. Rather it had hardly ever appeared except in an essay by an obscure individual called Friedman in that year. He wasn't in any sense then what he was to become.

While it later saw the light of day - principally on a highbrow Democratic wing while England was celebrating winning the World Cup - its public emergence was principally after the arrival of "neoconservatism". That was the main term in the 1980s. It wasn't a philosophy without a label and the label that was chosen appealed to those who were not socially liberal. "Neoliberal" turned them off. Admittedly the terms do have slightly different roots and objectives. Neocons were always as focussed on international strategies as much as on narrow domestic economics. They still are vis a vis Ukraine. See Robert Kagan if you can pull him from the gloom about Hillary not being elected. The Democrats chose Republican economics long ago. Increasing social liberalism - rights issues - was the way they managed to hoodwink their voters and in a mainly non-financial way pay them off.

But my big point here is that social democracy did not fail. To the extent that it ever existed in the US, it was abandoned by Nixon as early as the late 1960s. In some of Europe it was seen to crash in the mid 1970s; in the UK, not least because of union demands. But how socially democratic was the oil crisis of 1973 which was really the trigger for change? Not a lot - and the Scandinavians and the West Germans were able to keep with it longer having good economic management, decent relations with workers and advanced socially liberal ideals. In the end, they all caved in. They had no alternative because Reagan's America dictated. Brandt and Schmidt or today's "neoliberalism"? I know what I would choose.

And it's ironic isn't it. Hayek who was criticising Maynard Keynes in the 1930s long before the post war economic miracle sat pretty in Britain during WW2 and Friedman was cosy in the States, unable to fight in the war. Brandt on the other hand had to flee for his life to Norway because of the Nazis. So how these people have the temerity to say that the centre ground is akin to totalitarianism beggars belief but then in Mr Trump there is precisely the same sort of character. Behind the bull, it is actually rather wet in all of the wrong ways.

[french frank]

As you suggest, there are aspects of the neoliberal programme that require very illiberal methods of implementation, but that doesn't alter the fact that the origins of the ideology were in economic and political liberalism.

I wouldn't dispute the historical origins but was referring to UK liberalism as it developed into the prewar Liberal Party, and the current Liberal Party and Liberal Democrats.

[Lat-Literal]

I wouldn't dispute the historical origins but was referring to UK liberalism as it developed into the prewar Liberal Party, and the current Liberal Party and Liberal Democrats.

I'd welcome any thoughts about what Grimond offered in 1966 that was distinct from Wilson and/or Heath.

I feel I sort of know - grassroots etc - but have always wanted to understand the position better than I do.

[french frank]

I'd welcome any thoughts about what Grimond offered in 1966 that was distinct from Wilson and/or Heath.

Obituaries suggest that much of Grimond's contribution was his personality and sharp, analytical mind pitted against 'the other side', whoever that was. But I did like Michael Meadowcroft's story of his appearance on an election special with Robin Day:

"We've had a question from a Mrs Smith of Newtown who wants to know whether you are in favour of a united Europe; and, Mr Grimond, she wants a Yes or No answer."
"Yes," replied Jo.
Robin was slightly nonplussed for a moment. "But, Mr Grimond, it's a very difficult question just to answer like that?"
"Yes, it is. And I've decided it."

I feel I sort of know - grassroots etc - but have always wanted to understand the position better than I do.

I don't know where that started, nor the 'community politics' where political activity was focused on blocked drains and street lights not working.

[Lat-Literal]

Obituaries suggest that much of Grimond's contribution was his personality and sharp, analytical mind pitted against 'the other side', whoever that was. But I did like Michael Meadowcroft's story of his appearance on an election special with Robin Day:

"We've had a question from a Mrs Smith of Newtown who wants to know whether you are in favour of a united Europe; and, Mr Grimond, she wants a Yes or No answer."
"Yes," replied Jo.
Robin was slightly nonplussed for a moment. "But, Mr Grimond, it's a very difficult question just to answer like that?"
"Yes, it is. And I've decided it."

I don't know where that started, nor the 'community politics' where political activity was focused on blocked drains and street lights not working.

I like that. Sir Robin was also a Liberal candidate in one election although he didn't like to be reminded of it because of his BBC impartiality. Grimond was charismatic, certainly - I have seen film footage of him "on the stump" - and he pulled the Liberals up from nowhere (was it Clement Davies beforehand? - I'd need to Google). British Liberalism long after Lloyd George had just about clung on at the so-called celtic fringes but there were a fair few odd strands to it. I think John Nott - very Tory - was originally elected as a National Liberal. You mentioned Meadowcroft. Leeds, I think, and he had been around for a long, long time before being elected, almost certainly in the early 1980s. That may have been community based politics initially. And then of course there was and presumably is "The Liberal Party" which would see the Lib Dems as too closely linked to Social Democracy.

Personally I liked Penhaligon and Pardoe; I was also in touch with David Alton when a teenager because he was the youngest MP for a while. I was trying to get parliamentary people to my school. He was an unusual Liberal because of his Catholic faith. He is now a Crossbencher and chair of the All Parliamentary Group for the UK and North Korea.

[teamsaint]

I'm off to have a read about " Left Libertarianism", which sounds very interesting, and seems to lead to anarchism.

I expect S_A ( and others) know all about this .

[french frank]

Yes, Clement Davis before Grimond. I also see that, being the linchpin of the Liberal revival, he was inclined to shift his own general position, latterly from statist to more individualist. Michael Meadowcroft was one who held on to the old Liberal Party for a while before finally joining the LibDems - like his buddy Tony Greaves (now Baron Greaves ). I imagine that much of the early appeal of the revived Liberals was that they where neither of the other two, with people having little idea what they stood for. Conservatives are for the rich and the bosses, Labour is for the poor and the workers. Expressed in that binary form, what other position is there, other than vaguely in the middle somewhere? I'm not sure that there was much more than that (esp. NOTOT) which made the subsequent SDP/Liberal merger possible.

I like that. Sir Robin was also a Liberal candidate in one election although he didn't like to be reminded of it because of his BBC impartiality. Grimond was charismatic, certainly - I have seen film footage of him "on the stump" - and he pulled the Liberals up from nowhere (was it Clement Davies beforehand - I'd need to Google). British Liberalism long after Lloyd George had just about clung on at the so-called celtic fringes but there were a fair few odd strands to it. I think John Nott - very Tory - was originally elected as a National Liberal. You mentioned Meadowcroft. Leeds, I think, and he had been around for a long, long time before being elected, almost certainly in the early 1980s. That may have been community based politics initially. And then of course there was and presumably is "The Liberal Party" which would see the Lib Dems as too closely linked to Social Democracy.

[Lat-Literal]

Yes, Clement Davis before Grimond. I also see that, being the linchpin of the Liberal revival, he was inclined to shift his own general position, latterly from statist to more individualist. Michael Meadowcroft was one who held on to the old Liberal Party for a while before finally joining the LibDems - like his buddy Tony Greaves (now Baron Greaves ). I imagine that much of the early appeal of the revived Liberals was that they where neither of the other two, with people having little idea what they stood for. Conservatives are for the rich and the bosses, Labour is for the poor and the workers. Expressed in that binary form, what other position is there, other than vaguely in the middle somewhere? I'm not sure that there was much more than that (esp. NOTOT) which made the subsequent SDP/Liberal merger possible.

Yes indeed - I think also the underdog. Certainly by the late 1970s, the workers would not have been seen as the underdog because they often had powerful union representation. Additionally, in the 1960s something about thoughtful broadcasters. Ludovic Kennedy was another in the fold. As for a longer strand, there was a well-to-do concerned side, perhaps ostensibly women, who predated much of the parliamentary Labour movement and were clearly not unionized. Nancy Seear, for example. I'd see all these people as left-leaning.

I'm off to have a read about " Left Libertarianism", which sounds very interesting, and seems to lead to anarchism.

I expect S_A ( and others) know all about this .

Sounds like a contradiction in terms.........I will be all ears.

[teamsaint]

Yes, Clement Davis before Grimond. I also see that, being the linchpin of the Liberal revival, he was inclined to shift his own general position, latterly from statist to more individualist. Michael Meadowcroft was one who held on to the old Liberal Party for a while before finally joining the LibDems - like his buddy Tony Greaves (now Baron Greaves ). I imagine that much of the early appeal of the revived Liberals was that they where neither of the other two, with people having little idea what they stood for. Conservatives are for the rich and the bosses, Labour is for the poor and the workers. Expressed in that binary form, what other position is there, other than vaguely in the middle somewhere? I'm not sure that there was much more than that (esp. NOTOT) which made the subsequent SDP/Liberal merger possible.

Both the Conservative party and Labour can comfortably be viewed ( if one cares to see it that way) as being in thrall to centralising tendencies. In the case of the tories , towards increasing influence for the corporate sector ( on the state), as well as from the perspective of public spending, where they have historically, whatever the narrative they would like to put out, pretty much spent as much as Labour governments, albeit in somewhat different areas.
Plenty of room somewhere in the middle , for those of a broadly progressive nature to look towards policies that emphasise freedoms/freedom of choice of choice, in a way that the Lib Dems might not be seen to.

[french frank]

Plenty of room somewhere in the middle , for those of a broadly progressive nature to look towards policies that emphasise freedoms/freedom of choice of choice, in a way that the Lib Dems might not be seen to.

I think there is plenty of room for alternatives, in the middle and elsewhere. But for much of the general public - the voters - the traditional 'two sides' is enough for them to make up their minds, except when they want to 'protest'. Other party organisations have to make it clear in what way they are different - and hope that will be sufficiently attractive to the electorate.