The West under the vile scourge of unregulated Capitalism and corrupt Governments have predictably collapsed while the rich terrorsit Bankers & Corporate scum p*ss off abroad.

It’s great that someone is taking an interest in the millions of people being driven into poverty and generally ignored by a controlled media, esp the BBC and SKY.
I will tell ‘ya how it really is in Britain today:
In order to understand and determine genuine statistics and grasp a concept of how the general public are fairing in terms of wealth distribution, inequality, health and happiness, you have to trust statistical data. But here is the problem. The ONS (Office National Statistics) is a quango that uses manipulated figures to air inaccurate information, eg the ‘Unemployment’ statistics that are false. The actual count is over 9.6 Million yet, the ONS and the media do not air this. So, you can’t take with any confidence what you hear or fed by quangos or any stats produced by wealthy people.
Anyone who can detach themselves from the brainwashings of the economical system they deem okay, will see that deliberate unregulated Capitalism was always a predictable menace and an eventual outcome of mass division where predatory domination of resources, land, property and media was to be the outcome. A scourge that has now manifested in the mass divisions and hate in the country and spreading round the world.
People I know adhere to the ‘selfish gene’. ie. they don’t give a stuff whether other people suffer. So long as they are okay and their offspring get the latest iPhone or Horse ridding lesson and private education, they’re happy. These people are the mid to upper classes that downtread anyone out of work and ‘scrounging benefits and their taxes’ The type that are straight out of the Dickens era and the sweat shop scum. The type who would spit on the homeless and imprison protesters.
On the other side of the coin we have those barely surviving and having to steal just to get by. Those who are being denied help with the government cuts and manipulations to ‘benefits’ and statistics. The evil terrorists that create mass misery and poverty. These are the millions of Brits ignored by the media, esp them propaganda machines for the wealthy…the BBC & SKY.
On the one hand I see relatives pretending they are ‘strapped for cash’ while buying second and third houses to rent out under their ‘portfolios of property and retirement investments’, to those who have nothing and commit Justified crimes to pay their colossal bills and try survive while the government give them NO help.
This is Britain today. A totalitarian dictatorship serving the wealthy scum, suppressing protests by the poor, creation of prejudiced people, mass poverty and division, wealthy arrogant scum Bankers and Ministers and the epitome of the vile scourge of capitalism and corruption and hate.

Minor quibble, but the headline doesn’t seem to reflect the argument Ben is making. The headline refers to the betrayal of a “generation”. Ben says:

“This is not about the “Lost Generation” – it is about a lost class”

I’m glad to see activists like Ben pushing back against this generational narrative that we’re hearing from a number of quarters, whose superficial attraction has afforded it far more airtime than it deserves.

Excellent point, Mr Wearing. I came here armed with my “it’s a class issue!” retort, only to find the poster was saying exactly that.

Carry on.

“The people of Britain, Europe and the World have been failed by the free market and betrayed by the established political elite” – by what measure?

Rankings for the ‘Human Development Index’ are here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

The x3 key indicators are Life expectation, Education and Income – needless to say the UK does not come out on top but neither is it the worst place to live.

If this piece is about reconfiguring a new world order then I think this is more likely to arise as a result of a major international event, such as a rouge state setting off a nuclear device, rather than any meaningful international cooperation or planning

So Ben, what value have you added to the World or are you just a looter?

“All of these movements have a common theme – nothing less than the fundamental remaking of society.”

Wrong – the common theme is the anger of having to face up to paying more and getting less because governments have continuously overspent and the piggybank has run dry. Basic human self interest.

Question: if you don’t want free market capitalism, which system do you want instead?

I don’t disagree with George, actually. It’s a stirring piece but what do you hope to erect on neo-liberalism’s grave? Sometime or other this movement is going to have to answer that ‘cos I’m not sure how communists, anarchists and social democrats can co-exist too long without pulling in all directions.

“The people of Britain, Europe and the World have been failed by the free market”

Rilly?

http://www.indexmundi.com/world/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

That’s why global GDP is up by 29%* in only 7 years then?

*I haven’t bothered to compound it.

oh Lord, why do (some) people love writing (and reading) this kind of tripe?

“oh Lord, why do (some) people love writing (and reading) this kind of tripe?”

Amen

Good piece Ben.

I came here, like Kate and Dave, ready to berate you for talking about generation instead of class, and then I read the piece and realised that is not what you’re doing! It’s good to see someone part of this so-called ‘youth movement’ resisting the generational narrative.

I think George and BenSix have a point too – if the end of neo-liberalism is what we want, we have to start thinking about what we want to replace it with. That, in my opinion, is where leaderless protest should maybe start conceding a degree of structure.

oh Lord, why do (some) people waste their time commenting on what they regard as ‘this kind of tripe’?

@Ellie Mae

You spend hours writing blogs here and elsewhere on what you regard as tripe from the media/politicians etc. Hypocrisy much?

“if the end of neo-liberalism is what we want,”

Perhaps you should start by defining what neoliberalism is? Then you can decide which parts you want to change?

I’ve still not found a decent description (other than “stuff I don’t like”) of what neoliberalism actually means, although I’m routinely identified as a neoliberal.

“oh Lord, why do (some) people love writing (and reading) this kind of tripe?”

Wolfie Smith got a TV contract out of it, didn’t he?

14

Mmm…. tenuous.

The problem is that so called industrialisation has been done on the backs of peoples who were not free. In the 19 th century the industrial revolution was carried out by child labour, and adult labour that had no vote. As soon as they had the vote, they started to regulate the unregulated so called free market. (Hitler once said democracy always leads to communism) The capitalists had to go along with this because as we came into the 20th century and the uprisings in Russia and China huge sways of the globe were shut off to the capitalist. There was no reserve army of labour, children were increasingly seen as beings not to be used as factory fodder for the Tim Rand’s of his age.

Work became more plentiful in a regulated world and living standards began to rise. With the collapse of communism in the east, suddenly a huge reserve army of labour has magically appeared. China which is now having it’s own industrial revolution is doing it like we did in the 19th century. I.e. the people have no say, no vote, and that is how the capitalists like it. The Western worker is returning to his 19th century ancestors in that he has increasingly no power. If you don’t do what the capitalist wants, he will move his factory to where the worker has no say. All the benefits of a fairer and decent society will now all be stripped away over the next 50 years as welfare systems and health care is removed, and replaced by corporate power and greed of a few.

May you live in interesting times, and it is going to get very interesting over the next 25-50 years, although, I think a lot harder.

“Wolfie Smith got a TV contract out of it, didn’t he?”

Not only is that not very funny, it is not even true. Sullivan was the writer of that series, and he went on to write Only fools and horses.

Rightists can’t do humour unless it is fart jokes. And arrogant rightists can’t even manage that.

I’ve still not found a decent description (other than “stuff I don’t like”) of what neoliberalism actually means,

Anything with the prefix ‘neo-‘ means ‘thing of which the author disapproves’.

“I’ve still not found a decent description (other than “stuff I don’t like”) of what neoliberalism actually means”

If you took a course in political science, sociology, economics, international relations etc, it would be straight in the first textbook. It generally describes the re-emergance in the late 70s and 80s (hence neo) of the idea that the private sector should operate with fewer constraints and take over more of the economy. Generally associated with governments who privatised industries, cut taxes and de-regulated.

“I’ve still not found a decent description (other than “stuff I don’t like”) of what neoliberalism actually means.

That’s the definition of ‘capitalism’ surely?

“We are not protestors. Protesting is saying ‘I disagree’. Resistance is saying ‘I will not let this happen’. We are a resistance movement.”

So you are recommending breaking the law as set by a democratically elected Government? By all means protest and get your message across and let people decide at the next election, but it is a dangerous precedent to break the law whenever an elected Government enacts a policy you personally disagree with.

Fungus, I think for Ben to try to understand all that (yawn) constitutional stuff would be like so totally uncool. There is a protest to be protested. A change to be done sort of thing!!!!

Ellie,

I find it hard enough to explain why I waste time commenting on posts I don’t think are tripe.

(honestly, do you really find it hard to understand why somebody might spend 10 seconds typing “I think this is rubbish”? if you can understand why somebody would spent half an hour typing out an other variety of comment)

25

Yes actually I do. If something is valid but I disagree, I tend to respond (for example my response to Laurie Penny on NLP).

If something is ‘tripe,’ I don’t waste my time engaging with it. And I don’t understand why other people do. Life is too fucking short.

Anything with the prefix ‘neo-’ means ‘thing of which the author disapproves’.

Hrm…

“I have been a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-socialist, a neo-liberal, and finally a neoconservative. It seems that no ideology or philosophy has ever been able to encompass all of reality to my satisfaction. There was always a degree of detachment qualifying my commitment.”

– Irving Kristol

Stuart (5) – I’d love to know what value you’ve added to the world. Bare in mind that passive-aggressive blog commenting counts against your overall score.

Tim (9) – GDP says very little about equality and fairness. It says that overall the country has more money, but the question is WHO has that money. Chances are that it’ll be the richest that have amassed most of that 29% extra amongst themselves. Which is why GDP/Capita can’t be relied on either.

Fungus and Torquil (23 and 24) – Excuse me if I’ve missed this part (but I’ve read it twice so I’m pretty confident I haven’t), but I don’t remember Ben saying anything about breaking laws at all. If that’s the way you want to interpret it then that’s your prerogative.
Either way, it’d be a stretch to say this government has a democratic mandate to govern. Neither party won.

Sean @28:

“it’d be a stretch to say this government has a democratic mandate to govern. Neither party won.”

Hardly. The Cons and Libs between them not only got the most votes, but also, crucially, command a majority in Parliament for their joint programme. That’s a democratic mandate. And if Labour after the last election had been able to cobble together a majority coalition, even with a minority of votes cast, they could have plausibly claimed a democratic mandate, too.

@9

“The people of Britain, Europe and the World have been failed by the free market”

Rilly?

http://www.indexmundi.com/world/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

That’s why global GDP is up by 29%* in only 7 years then?

*I haven’t bothered to compound it.

That’s great, unfortunately because of the neoliberal policies of the last 30 years. The majority of the population have seen little or no benefit from the ‘growth’ which you highlight. As the lions share of the proceeds have gone to those at the top of the income scale.

In the US, average incomes have been stagnant in real terms since the 1970s. While those in the top 1% of the income bracket have seen their incomes shoot up.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/no-long-term-recovery-without-real-wage-growth
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/07/58-of-real-income-growth-since-1976-went-to-top-1-and-why-that-matters.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/usa/labor/wages.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

I assume that the picture is pretty much the same here although I can’t find a cite for it.

Yet another indictment of the failed neoliberal policies of the last 30 years. (although cynics might say that by impoverishing the masses and enriching those at the top it has worked exactly as intended!)

@15 Tim Worstall: “I’ve still not found a decent description (other than “stuff I don’t like”) of what neoliberalism actually means…”

Chris Dillow linked to this piece the other day:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/libertarianism-and-the-left/

@30…..yes he did. And I’m a Fellow at the ASI. And I would say, along with Sam Bowman, that I’ve the better way to achive those desired goals.

You know, be liberal….no, not neo anything, but just straight up old liberal. Smith, Ricardo, Bastiat, Cobden, Mill, Mises, Freidman…..

@26 Ellie Mae: “If something is ‘tripe,’ I don’t waste my time engaging with it. And I don’t understand why other people do.”

1. Perhaps the author might wish to explode verbally but does not have the time to qualify the argument.

2. The explosion can encourage others to contribute, for or against the OP. I might do so myself.

As a Lancastrian, however, I must challenge the abuse of tripe (by Luis). On its own, tripe is a dish for connoisseurs (which excludes me) but it is a tasty ingredient of sausage and pate. Furthermore, environmental and economic efficiency require us to eat strange bits of animals; if you are a green who eats meat, you should enjoy a plate of stomach, lips or brain; squeamish people can buy it on the high street ready processed.

I love the passion in the writing and it is pleasing to note that some of our youth believe in a better future. Trouble is its idilology and I’m afraid I’ve had enough of that from the present incumbents. Problem is what to replace the current system with and then get other countries to tade with you? Unfortunately we are saddled with capitalism but we must find a fairer way of distributing the wealth created by that system.

@31 Tim Worstall: “And I would say, along with Sam Bowman, that I’ve the better way to achive those desired goals.”

Sam Bowman identifies two points out of ten for questioning (by the right). I’d further say that the other eight points are actions rather than ambitions. Different actions for the liberal left and liberal right, possibly, but the UK electorate has learned a lot about compromise these last ten months.

As a starting point for debate about neoliberalism, it is OK for a lefty liberal.

The problems alluded to in this post have nothing to do with free markets. ‘Crony capitalism’ and massive government intervention have been the pattern over the last 100 years, and if you study history you will find that this is pretty much always the pattern. The day that modern liberals rediscover the importance of economic liberty and turn away from the old Tory methods of state power and coercion will be a day of much rejoicing, for only then will they re-connect with the historic struggle they purport to represent.

@28 Sean, So how do you ‘not let it happen’ (i.e. not let the Government carry outits policies) without breaking the law?

There’s a comment stick in the spam box (too many link I think) which says this re my GDP figures up above:

“That’s great, unfortunately because of the neoliberal policies of the last 30 years. The majority of the population have seen little or no benefit from the ‘growth’ which you highlight. As the lions share of the proceeds have gone to those at the top of the income scale.

In the US, average incomes have been stagnant in real terms since the 1970s. While those in the top 1% of the income bracket have seen their incomes shoot up.”

I don’t actually agree that real incomes in the US have stagnated for the past 30 years. On boring statistical details grounds which I won’t bore you with now (OK, I will. There are two series, wages and household incomes. The wages series doesn’t account for total compensation, thus missing health care and other benefits in kind and the household incomes figures do not adjust for the shrinking of the household size). And they certainly haven’t here.

But what if they were in fact true? What has happened to that 29% grwoth in GDP?

Well, we know that globalisation increases in country inequality: but it decreases global inequality. Because the poor countries are growing faster than the rich. We’ve got catch up, convergence.

The last 30 years have seen the biggest reduction in poverty in the history of our entire species. Hundreds of millions climbing up out of that $1 a day absolute destitution.

So, let’s say it all is “neoliberalism”. We in the rich countries mark time. The poor in the poor countries get richer by leaps and bounds.

Rather a desirable liberal result, isn’t it?

“Rather a desirable liberal result, isn’t it?

Much of the growth has come from China, which is hardly a country run on liberal lines though…..

“Much of the growth has come from China, which is hardly a country run on liberal lines though…..”

Tsk. The growth has come from India, Indonesia, S Korea, Taiwan (both shit poor only 40 years ago) and so on as well.

And while China isn’t, as you say, a very liberal place it would be difficult to say that it was less liberal than it used to be (ditto those other places).

And finally, the poor getting rich is a desirable liberal goal, even if the methods used are not as liberal as we might desire.

Yes but you are using the global growth figures to try and obtain support for your liberal views. Wheras most of the examples you give are authoritarian countries with extensive involvement in the economy. Sure they have become a more liberal in the sense that it has become easier to set up a business and trade, but they’ve still used protectionism where it has been in their percieved interests, used capital controls etc. Wheras the neo-liberal view is that these things are harmful to growth.

“Sure they have become a more liberal in the sense that it has become easier to set up a business and trade, but they’ve still used protectionism where it has been in their percieved interests, used capital controls etc. Wheras the neo-liberal view is that these things are harmful to growth.”

Do not forget the two most important words in economics: “ceteris paribus”.

Everything else remaining the same.

Sure, every country has done some idiot things by the lights of “neoliberal” economics. And some countries have grown and some haven’t. But our argument is not that you cannot grow if you do only a few stupid things. It is that if you do too many stupid things you cannot grow.

We do argue that if places hadn’t used protectionism they would have grown even faster: as Hong Kong did for example.

Free markets get some credit in China not because China’s economy is a free market but because it is (more or less) free trade that has permitted the rest of the world to buy China’s exports and send FDI flows into China, whatever the nature of the political system within China is (and China’s growth has indisputably come from reforms that moved its system in the direction of liberal, even if central planning still plays a big role).

“permitted the rest of the world to buy China’s exports ”

The thing is, I’ve never heard of any country using protectionism to stop exports (outside of national emergencies) Protectionism is about protecting your own industries. Free trade isn’t just about exports, but the freedom of others to export to you as well (E.U take note…)

planeshift

er … no, protectionism would be used to block imports from China

@45 He means China being protectionist, not those buying off them.

Yes but it wouldn’t be china doing the protectionism in that case.

but in comment 44 your are quoting me, and I was talking about free trade in the rest of the world, not at China’s borders.