Contagion 2020

[Cheeky Gnando’s]

Ken The cunt was wandering about his garden so that the government never had to spend money funding the service properly. Tory AF

[Sarkozabal]

Had kept an open mind to Captain Tom until now, but that's a nailed on family of Tories.

He's an ex-Army Officer who raised money by walking around his massive fuck-off garden, what did you expect?

[Herzog]

A Tory giving to charity and pro-NHS?

We are all delirious in death.

[Shuto Makino]

Tories love charity VS you goon

[CritchSmile]

Yeah, that's where I thought you were coming from. It was more Dred I was replying to - my general point was that it's easy to look at these things and be blinded by the big numbers, but that even if we accepted that loads of money had been saved, it'd still be a drop in the ocean of the UK economy. Was just citing the number you gave as an example.


I don't think I have mentioned neoliberalism often, if at all, because in general it's something I try to avoid doing - in the online left, the word 'neoliberalism' too often means everything and nothing, and acts as a vague signifier for every Bad Capitalist Thing. The term is often unhelpful, so when possible I try to more precisely define what I'm referencing even if it means using more words.

Not to go all 'amateur psychotherapist', but I feel like you sometimes project your discomforts with 'the left' onto me so that you can prove (to yourself?) that you aren't one of *those* lefties In this case, you want me to be blaming everything on neoliberalism so you can prove that you don't do that.

I spend a lot of my day working with land tenure so I view things from from the commons perspective. I'm not sure why you avoid using the word neoliberalism, the geographer David Harvey is a hero of mine so I really think you should continue using it. It's a really important term. I just see the UKs covid response as more than only forces of neoliberalism.

Your amateur psychology that I'm distancing myself from  critique of neoliberalism to be not be seen as “that type of left” is actually quite disappointing as I am exactly that type of “left” (whatever you mean by that).

I do like that your better judgement said not to psychoanalyse someone on a footy forum but you thought, fuck it, im going to do it anyway,

[Felix]

I'm just going to step out now.

[Johnny]

Fame went to his head, good riddance

[CritchSmile]

Tom went full Tony Montana.

[Shuto Makino]

I spend a lot of my day working with land tenure so I view things from from the commons perspective. I'm not sure why you avoid using the word neoliberalism, the geographer David Harvey is a hero of mine so I really think you should continue using it. It's a really important term.

I'm not saying that the term is useless - far from it - but that too often people who use it in online debates do so out of intellectual laziness - i.e. ascribing something to 'neoliberalism' works as shorthand that eliminates the need to explain why it's bad. Contemporary neoliberalism is less one unified economic doctrine than a paradigm encompassing multiple different strands and almost every form of government that currently exists - as you'll know if you've read David Harvey - so usually doesn't add much in terms of explanatory value. There's a theorist who has written about this, but whose name I've forgotten. The point isn't that we should stop using the term 'neoliberalism', but that we should only do so when it's actually useful.

(Slightly hypocritical on my part as I do regularly use terms you could aim a similar criticism at, like 'liberal' or 'centrist'. The difference is that when I use those terms, I'm rarely trying to provide any analytical value)

Your amateur psychology that I'm distancing myself from critique of neoliberalism to be not be seen as “that type of left” is actually quite disappointing as I am exactly that type of “left” (whatever you mean by that).

I wasn't saying that you're distancing yourself from critique of neoliberalism, but that you're trying to show you don't reduce the entirety of political commentary to *just that* - and in this case are doing so by trying to find someone who is.

Either way, I've now explained that I wasn't ascribing the British government's response to neoliberalism - in fact, it runs counter to IMF recommendations, which, by any reasonable definition, are the neoliberal orthodoxy. So if you still disagree with what I'm saying, it'd be good if you could explain why.

[Del-icious]

Contemporary neoliberalism is less one unified economic doctrine than a paradigm encompassing multiple different strands and almost every form of government that currently exists - as you'll know if you've read David Harvey - so usually doesn't add much in terms of explanatory value.

Me and Lew have been saying the same for years.

[The Great Khali]

I'm not saying that the term is useless - far from it - but that too often people who use it in online debates do so out of intellectual laziness - i.e. ascribing something to 'neoliberalism' works as shorthand that eliminates the need to explain why it's bad. Contemporary neoliberalism is less one unified economic doctrine than a paradigm encompassing multiple different strands and almost every form of government that currently exists - as you'll know if you've read David Harvey - so usually doesn't add much in terms of explanatory value. There's a theorist who has written about this, but whose name I've forgotten. The point isn't that we should stop using the term 'neoliberalism', but that we should only do so when it's actually useful.

(Slightly hypocritical on my part as I do regularly use terms you could aim a similar criticism at, like 'liberal' or 'centrist'. The difference is that when I use those terms, I'm rarely trying to provide any analytical value)


I wasn't saying that you're distancing yourself from critique of neoliberalism, but that you're trying to show you don't reduce the entirety of political commentary to *just that* - and in this case are doing so by trying to find someone who is.

Either way, I've now explained that I wasn't ascribing the British government's response to neoliberalism - in fact, it runs counter to IMF recommendations, which, by any reasonable definition, are the neoliberal orthodoxy. So if you still disagree with what I'm saying, it'd be good if you could explain why.

[Drederick Shanktum]

Love it when Scott and mak get the rulers out to measure their massive brainstiny tadgers

[Shuto Makino]

Another reason I try to avoid technical/theory terms is that they can exclude people who are intelligent but not necessarily educated to post-degree level, and give the impression I'm more interested in showing how clever I am than in discussing issues

Edit: wrote that before Dred's post

[Papin]

This is worse than Covid.

[CritchSmile]

Either way, I've now explained that I wasn't ascribing the British government's response to neoliberalism - in fact, it runs counter to IMF recommendations, which, by any reasonable definition, are the neoliberal orthodoxy. So if you still disagree with what I'm saying, it'd be good if you could explain why.

Sure. When you said:

"not that I think the economy should necessarily be the main priority, but even by their own metric this government is failing miserably".

It read to me that you were saying that this government's metric is the economy, rather than the health of the population. I'm saying that the government isn't failing miserably as their metric is not primarly the economy. The government is succeeding in cornering political power, controlling levers of institutional influence and siphoning off resources to their own class of people. The idea that the government's metric is the economy (neoliberalism = monetarism is king) is naive. The government's metric is power grabbing and they can barely hide their laughter as they do it. They are not failing at all.

Another reason I try to avoid technical/theory terms is that they can exclude people who are intelligent but not necessarily educated to post-degree level, and give the impression I'm more interested in showing how clever I am than in discussing issues

Edit: wrote that before Dred's post

The word neoliberal has firmly been part of the cultural zeitgeist for a long time now so I generally wouldn't patronise by putting it into baby speak.  That's just my perspective though.

[Zizou]

Guys plz

[Shuto Makino]

Sure. When you said:

"not that I think the economy should necessarily be the main priority, but even by their own metric this government is failing miserably".

It read to me that you were saying that this government's metric is the economy, rather than the health of the population. I'm saying that the government isn't failing miserably as their metric is not primarly the economy. The government is succeeding in cornering political power, controlling levers of institutional influence and siphoning off resources to their own class of people. The idea that the government's metric is the economy (neoliberalism = monetarism is king) is naive. The government's metric is power grabbing and they can barely hide their laughter as they do it. They are not failing at all.

Ah, I see.

By 'their own metric' I meant the metric they've been overtly using - all the chat of reopening etc has been framed as 'kickstarting the economy'. What I meant to suggest was quite close to what you're saying - that if it was really about the economy (as opposed to both entrenching their own power and implementing a policy of no state help for vulnerable people at all costs, even if that's actively bad for the economy) they'd be implementing entirelt different policies. I'd argue that the response has been an expression of multiple tendencies in the Conservative party, including death cult, more neoliberal than Hayek neoliberalism, blatant power grab, and aristocratic contempt for the poor. Didn't mean to suggest they were genuinely primarily interested in the economy and just doing really badly.

The word neoliberal has firmly been part of the cultural zeitgeist for a long time now so I generally wouldn't patronise by putting it into baby speak. That's just my perspective though.

I sometimes feel this way, but think it's easy to forget that things which feel obvious and everyday when you're about 8 years into your uni education in humanities/social sciences aren't that way for everyone. I know plenty of people I'd consider intelligent (including some who are uni educated) who switch off when I start going down that route. For the most part I think it's best just to speak in the simplest language possible at all times (although, as this conversation has shown, I don't always manage).

[Christian Benorchgrevink]

Well while you guys were arguing semantics I was watching the Royal Rumble. I think we all know who made the most of their time 

[CritchSmile]

Ah, I see.

By 'their own metric' I meant the metric they've been overtly using - all the chat of reopening etc has been framed as 'kickstarting the economy'. What I meant to suggest was quite close to what you're saying - that if it was really about the economy (as opposed to both entrenching their own power and implementing a policy of no state help for vulnerable people at all costs, even if that's actively bad for the economy) they'd be implementing entirelt different policies. I'd argue that the response has been an expression of multiple tendencies in the Conservative party, including death cult, more neoliberal than Hayek neoliberalism, blatant power grab, and aristocratic contempt for the poor. Didn't mean to suggest they were genuinely primarily interested in the economy and just doing really badly.


I sometimes feel this way, but think it's easy to forget that things which feel obvious and everyday when you're about 8 years into your uni education in humanities/social sciences aren't that way for everyone. I know plenty of people I'd consider intelligent (including some who are uni educated) who switch off when I start going down that route. For the most part I think it's best just to speak in the simplest language possible at all times (although, as this conversation has shown, I don't always manage).

Your first part makes sense and I understand why you thought I saw the word IMF and thought that was what I was picking up on regarding neoliberal.

Second part, nah I disagree with the idea you need a postgraduate education (8 years!) to know what neoliberal is, most kids in Begbie's Modern Studies class will have a general understanding of what is being said. It's also a word that is used alot in rural community buyouts and urban regeneration projects. Folk are canny enough to know when they are getting beasted and they inevitably come across terminology online or in videos/books that describe their experience.

I really don't want to keep bringing up this education thing, i view what I do as social/environmental research rather than being 'an academic'. it just so happens that a university is the host institution paying me and I have to teach/lecture as part of the deal. Learning should be fully democratised, i'm not into the gatekeeping thing.

[Floyd]

Your first part makes sense and I understand why you thought I saw the word IMF and thought that was what I was picking up on regarding neoliberal.

Second part, nah I disagree with the idea you need a postgraduate education (8 years) to know what neoliberal is, most kids in Begbie's Modern Studies class will have a general understanding of what is being said. It's also a word that is used alot in rural community buyouts and urban regeneration projects. Folk are canny enough to know when they are getting beasted and they inevitably come across terminology online or in videos/books that describe their experience.

I really don't want to keep bringing up this education thing, i view what I do as social/environmental research rather than being 'an academic'. it just so happens that a university is the host institution paying me and I have to teach/lecture as part of the deal. Learning should be fully democratised, i'm not into the gatekeeping thing.