Tačerizam - ideja, pozadina i posledice

[Indy]

Prethodni komentar sam postavio jer je naporno to svrstavanje u tabore po nekakvim binarnim obrascima. Utoliko su Andurilov post i Buđina dopuna pravo osveženje.

Ja se ne bih svrstavao da (posebno juce) nisam bio bombardovan postovima nekoliko autora koji su me prakticno uterivali u neke (meni ne bas prirodne) gotovo marksisticke vode. Cuj, ako neko napada moju kritiku (ne Tacerke same kao osobe ili PM-a, vec Tacerkinog dugotrajnog globalnog uticaja - jer to je ono sto je meni kod nje nadasve negativno) sa referencama, ili kukavicjim jajima na tu temu, na Putina, boljsevike, srbokomuniste i ne znam ti ja sta, onda meni to ne ostavlja prostor da normalno komuniciram.Jos jednom ponavljam da si u mojim ocima dosta legitimiteta za ovu diskusiju izgubio nehajnom izjavom da te ne zanimaju problemi onih za koje ti smatras da zive bolje od tebe (mada bih ja tu izneo prilicnu dozu skepticizma, ogranicenu jedino cinjenicom da ja nemam pojma kako ti konkretno zivis).

[Indy]

A nadam se i čuveni nastup koji preporučuješ a koji još uvek nisam stigao da pogledam :D

Evo ti (i drugima) transkript.

GERMAINE GREER: Well, Margaret Thatcher certainly is probably the most influential British politician in my lifetime but the important thing to understand is the party she influenced was the Labour Party, who learnt her policies and applied them and she also imbibed quite a lot from the Australian system, where you turn your working class and stakeholders and get them to live out a life of debt and DIY, which keeps them out of trouble and off the streets. So Mrs Thatcher imbibed all of that and applied it in her own way. So we had the sell-off of council housing. Now, of course, we have a huge housing shortage, et cetera, et cetera and so on. But people mustn’t forget two important things. One is the sinking of the Belgrano, which is a war crime which she strangely got away with and the other thing was the Al-Yamamah arms deal which was connected with the BOAC bribery business that was suppressed and so on. Massive corruption. Now that she has completed her days and she has been very much reduced recently. I see her quite - I saw her quite often and she was still doing all the traditional things that she always did, using the same language and so on, but never quite knowing where she was, but now that she is no longer a problem, in that we can start to actually investigate what happened with the Al-Yamamah arms deal and why is it that her son, who is an idiot, is actually a multimillionaire, these are all things we have got to work out. There is a good deal of re-assessment to be done in the case of Margaret Thatcher.TONY JONES: And very briefly did you admire her as a woman? She basically climbed the highest porticos of power in Britain and that was no mean feat?GERMAINE GREER: Well, but you have to understand how it was done. There were no women around her. She was actually elected by her own party to serve as the new brew that would bring about reforms that would be very unpopular. Then they figured they could unload her and start again. When they actually came to unload her, it was done in the most callous way and now Tony Blair, who is her most famous disciple, is a multimillionaire, probably a billionaire. Margaret Thatcher didn't get any seats on any lucrative boards, none of the easy money came her way. She actually did lecture tours, which is outrageous someone of her political eminence should be reduced to that. Believe me, the British establishment got their revenge on Margaret Thatcher.

[mandingo]

Indy, evo sta pise tvoj "miljenik" Justin. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/04/09/the-thatcher-paradox/

[Indy]

Indy, evo sta pise tvoj "miljenik" Justin. http://original.anti...atcher-paradox/

Hvala. Tacno je da se najcesce slazem s njim.

[Turnbull]

Robin daje jedno originalno čitanje neoliberalizma i Tačerkine uloge u njemu. It's feudalism stupid!Meni je ta teza inače draga, i prilično ubedljiva i iz drugih razloga, ali da ne trolujem ovde.

Left critics of neoliberalism—or just plain old unregulated capitalism—often cite Margaret Thatcher’s famous declaration “There is no such thing as society” as evidence of neoliberalism’s hostility to all things collective. Neoliberalism, the story goes, unleashes the individual to fend for herself, denying her the supports of society (government, neighborhood solidarity, etc.) so that she can prove her mettle in the marketplace.But these critics often ignore the fine print of what Thatcher actually said in that famous 1987 interview with, of all things, Woman’s Own. Here’s the buildup to that infamous quote:Who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families…It’s that last phrase (“and there are families”) that’s crucial. Contrary to popular (or at least leftist) myth, neoliberals are not untrammeled individualists. In many ways, they’re not that different from traditional conservatives: that is, they see individuals embedded in social institutions like the church or the family or schools—all institutions, it should be said, that are hierarchical and undemocratic.Thatcher isn’t alone in this. For all their individualist bluster, libertarians—particularly those market-oriented libertarians who are rightly viewed as the leading theoreticians of neoliberalism—often make the same claim. When these libertarians look out at society, they don’t always see isolated or autonomous individuals; they’re just as likely to see private hierarchies like the family or the workplace, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees. And that, I suspect (though further research is certainly necessary), is what they think of and like about society: that it’s an archipelago of private governments.

[Indy]

neoliberalism—or just plain old unregulated capitalism

Ovo je zlato, za kad počne smaranje da reč neoliberalizam ne znači ništa itd. (Topli zec koga sam već morao da prođem).

[pacey defender]

Jos jednom ponavljam da si u mojim ocima dosta legitimiteta za ovu diskusiju izgubio nehajnom izjavom da te ne zanimaju problemi onih za koje ti smatras da zive bolje od tebe (mada bih ja tu izneo prilicnu dozu skepticizma, ogranicenu jedino cinjenicom da ja nemam pojma kako ti konkretno zivis).

Dobro, nisam bio baš toliko eksplicitan, rekao sam, ako se dobro sećam, da sve manje imam saosećanja sa onima koji žive lošije od mene. Sa čime si se delimično saglasio, zar ne?Znam da je svakome sopstvena muka najveća, ne negiram to. Samo se radi o tome da su mi značajniji problemi ljudi koji žive u država trećeg sveta, u ekstremnom siromaštvu, nego što je to slučaj sa, na primer radnicima propale čeličane u nekom insustrijskom gradu u Engleskoj. Nipošto mi nije namera bila da kažem da nisam zainteresovan za posledice odluka političara u bogatim državama. Rekao bih, naprotiv, te stvari me zanimaju dosta dugo.

[pacey defender]

Ovo je zlato, za kad počne smaranje da reč neoliberalizam ne znači ništa itd. (Topli zec koga sam već morao da prođem).

Ali ja sve vreme nekako kapiram da se neoliberalizam ne odnosi na neregulisani kapitalizam, nego na regulisani kapitalizam u interesu, recimo, multinacionalnih kompanija, na bail-out akcije, i sl. Otuda polemike o terminologiiji - nije to topli zec, nego je bitno da usaglasimo o čemu tačno govorimo.

[Indy]

Otuda polemike o terminologiiji - nije to topli zec, nego je bitno da usaglasimo o čemu tačno govorimo.

OK, u pravu si.Samo "vas" je bilo previše odjednom (izvinjavam se što "vas" grupišem, jer znam da se u mnogo čemu međusobno ne slažete, mislim, ti, mandingo, Rodjer i ko je još bio manje nego zadovoljan mojim pisanjem).U stvari mislim da je kapitalizam neregulisan ne onda kada nema (na papiru) regulacija, nego kada se primenjuju toliko selektivno i proizvoljno da je praktično isto kao da ih i nema (too big to fail, too big to jail i slične lepote).

[mandingo]

Bespredmetno je sad otvarati pitanje o 'neregulisanom kapitalizmu' - sigurno se necemo sloziti sta to znaci. Najkrace, neko koji je bio war friendly kao Thacerka, jednostavno nemoze biti heroj kapitalizma ili slobodnog drustva.

[Indy]

Bespredmetno je zato sto se necemo sloziti? Hajmo onda da zatvorimo forum.Uostalom, Sveti Otac je rekao.

[Budja]

Robin daje jedno originalno čitanje neoliberalizma i Tačerkine uloge u njemu. It's feudalism stupid!Meni je ta teza inače draga, i prilično ubedljiva i iz drugih razloga, ali da ne trolujem ovde.

Odlicno, i meni se svidja.I clanak, lepo pokazuje da jednacina neoliberali=liberali=libertarijanci ne stoji, vec da je jednacina neoliberali=konzervativci.Stoga je zabuna u terminologiji ono sto klasicne liberale i libertarijance nervira.Ivan Jankovic i ekipa su konzerve, ne neoliberali ili liberali.

[pacey defender]

Stoga je zabuna u terminologiji ono sto klasicne liberale i libertarijance nervira.

I nas ostale :D

[Indy]

Najsmesnije je sto sam (Budjinim rezonom) dosao do toga da su neoliberali = neokonzervativci.(Jer, recimo, ne bi se nuzno od konzervativaca ocekivale radikalne reforme... to je na neki nacin contradictio in adjecto, ili kako se to vec kaze).

[Turnbull]

Odlicno, i meni se svidja.I clanak, lepo pokazuje da jednacina neoliberali=liberali=libertarijanci ne stoji, vec da je jednacina neoliberali=konzervativci.Stoga je zabuna u terminologiji ono sto klasicne liberale i libertarijance nervira.Ivan Jankovic i ekipa su konzerve, ne neoliberali ili liberali.

Zapravo, Robinova teza se odnosi i na libertarijance:

When these libertarians look out at society, they don’t always see isolated or autonomous individuals; they’re just as likely to see private hierarchies like the family or the workplace, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.

Liberali su, naravno, druga priča.