Bowman's last voice: How neoliberalism paved the way for Trump

On 10 January 2017, Sigismund Baumann, a prominent Sociologist of Polish Descent, died of illness at his home in Leeds, England, at the age of 91. Baumann wrote as many as 77 books in his lifetime, the most well-known book for Chinese readers is "Modernity and the Holocaust". Just two months ago, when public opinion was boiling around the world over Trump's election as President of the United States, Bowman dragged a sick body to write and published his last media article on the Social Europe website, "How Neoliberalism Prepared The Way For Donald Trump", which The Paper compiled on the occasion of Bowman's death for the benefit of readers.

Zygmunt Bauman Visual China Infographic

Hillary and Khrushchev: A condemnation of déjà vu

I still remember all this vividly: Nikita Khrushchev decided to publicly condemn Stalin, calling it "wrong, deformed." With the passage of time, fewer and fewer people were able to actually do Khrushchev's deeds.

In many of Khrushchev's hour-long speeches, he never thought that this policy was mixed with some kind of unjust, unjust, or immoral malice in the first place. Nor does he believe that unless the precipice is reincarnated and rebuilt, this malice will inevitably lead to these condemned and criticized atrocities that are now being committed. Only one person, and at most a few other known people, collaborated to implement the system and did a series of wrong things.

I also vividly remember the public reaction to what Khrushchev exposed. Although they felt some discomfort with this, they gladly accepted and embraced the instructions issued. Many more were crying, lamenting for the second time the historical drama of their lives. But this time, the object of this lament has changed: it is the needle for those who, in essence, have perfect character, and have no intention of committing accidental mistakes and omissions in the pursuit of an unattainable noble goal. But most people laughed, but the pain was clearly heard in this laughter.

I recall these things — and these are long ago anyway — not only because older people like me often like and indulge in the reenactment of the past, but also because those who have fallen and sympathized with the losers have strange similarities to those who have suffered Hillary Clinton, to the Democratic Party she represents, to the neoliberal policies they have wrongly implemented and promised to continue after the election victory. Even words like "error" and "deformity," appropriately matched with the names of the culprits, were interpreted as ultimate satisfaction in their reactions.

Trump and Hitler: "Decisive" leaders

Orban, Kaczynski, Fijo, Trump — this incomplete list lists those who have or are trying to rule entirely on the will and legitimacy of the rulers. In other words, they wanted to practice Karl Schmitt's definition of sovereignty (see his Theology of Politics) as a kind of "decisionist" rule. The number of people who are enthusiastically following their bold, unscrupulous and rude behavior, while admiring them and not waiting to follow their example, is growing rapidly. Public praise and demand for this is growing rapidly – and may be growing faster! Until recently, the seller's market of self-appointed "one and only" leaders was rapidly and irresistibly transforming into a buyer's market. Trump became president of the United States because he clearly told Americans that he would be the type of leader, and because Americans wanted to be led by this type of leader.

A "decisive" leader needs only public approval to act, whether spontaneous, voluntary, deliberately created or imposed on the public. His decisions are not limited in any way, and even the limitations derived from "higher reasons"—such as religious limitations—cannot limit his decisions. A leader of decisionism is close to despotism: just as God answered Job's question, God refused to explain his decision, and denied Job the right to inquire and get an explanation (nor did anyone else in that story). The only explanation required for a leader's decision, and the one that those affected by it should know and have access to, is that this decision is the leader's will.

The "certainty" of things is very important for the sustainability of life, and is the most ardent dream of those who are harassed and oppressed by their own uncertainty (although William Pitt Jr., as he had observed in 1783, could turn into "a defense for the violation of the freedom of all human beings" and "the argument of a dictator"). Politics, guided by the principles of determination, is the encounter between the arguments of the dictator and those who approve of it. Pete was one of the first to sketch out the original beginnings of liberal democracy, and we might say that liberal democracy developed precisely for the sake of reason and the real human interest, to prevent such an encounter.

Guard against the classical liberalism of potential authoritarianism

In the decades since, legal theorists, legal practitioners, and political philosophers have banded together to achieve the goal of liberal democracy. They have succeeded and kept their gains. In the process, they put their ideas and creativity into it and implemented a series of institutional instruments: separating the legislative, judicial, and enforcement powers, and the three powers independently and closely combined at the same time—thus prompting them to adopt the form of negotiated agreements permanently, away from the tendency of potential authoritarian rule. Through these institutional means, the process of achieving the above goals has become the mainstream concept.

This tendency to develop is complemented by another, which originates more in culture than in institutions. Its manifesto was the slogan of "freedom, equality, fraternity" preached by the Enlightenment philosophers, which was later embroidered on the banner and carried from one end of Europe to the other by the armies of the French Revolution. Those who propagate this slogan know that these three elements have the potential to become good practical content only when they appear together. Freedom can produce fraternity only in the company of equality, and without the conditions that play a coordinating role in the three, then freedom is most likely to produce inequality, which in essence creates division, which makes people enemies of each other, and produces chaos, rather than unity and unity. Only the three elements of the whole can produce a peaceful and thriving society, and the spirit of mutual cooperation can be well integrated into society.

Such a position was closely integrated, either explicitly or implicitly, with the "classical" liberalism of the next two centuries. This liberalism holds that human beings can only truly attain freedom if they learn to use their own freedom. True fraternity is only possible when people attain the qualities of freedom and brotherhood. What John Stewart Mill drew from his outright liberal convictions was socialist, while Lord Beveridge, the spiritual leader of the promotion of a universal welfare state in England (and the one who pushed other European countries to follow their example), saw the welfare state as an integral part of the process of implementing the exact liberal ideas in his thinking and presentation of his ideas.

Neoliberalism as an "establishment"

But, to make a long story short: neoliberalism is now a hegemonic philosophy that almost the entire political spectrum identifies with — and it is certainly all parts of what Trump and his followers consider to be the "establishment," parts of which they want to completely destroy with public anger and rebellion, a philosophy that drifts away from liberalism of the past. Neoliberalism does what classical liberalism bravely struggles to prevent and counteract, making it essentially the obvious opposite of classical liberalism. This kind of thing is to ignore the premise of equality from the three inseparable principles and assumptions of the Enlightenment, for the sake of practical intentions and purposes, often equality is only expressed in words.

In a country with lofty ideals and – thanks to its neoliberal leaders – and a country without disappointment, neoliberal philosophy has lasted for three or four decades without division or serious challenges. Thirty or forty years later, Trump's election has almost become a predetermined event. In such an environment, the people who guide public opinion are actively seeking, understanding, and fiercely debating those mistakes and deformities, and these people can only be roasted (roasted?). The touches on the cake.

The self-styled bearers of lofty ideals and the conquerors of disappointment, the multitude of politically seditious speakers—or, in short, self-styled and recognized strongmen—whose power is measured by their ability to break the rules of the game imposed by the "establishment" and strive to maintain, not by their ability to obey those rules. The "establishment" is their common enemy. And now this environment is a carnival for them. We (and I mean people who are worried not only about their behavior, but also about their unfulfilled potential) are advised to be skeptical about quick fixes and one-click to remove the hassle. The options we face in such an environment are either from a demon or from an unfathomable ocean of blue, so we should be more skeptical.

Shortly before the death of the great Umberto Echo, in his wise essay Making an Enemy, through his many studies of the matter, he came to the sad conclusion that followed: "The importance of having an enemy lies not only in our ability to define our own identity, but also in our ability to erect an obstacle to which we can measure our own value system and, in the process of trying to overcome it, to show our own value." In other words, we need an enemy to know what we are and what we are not. This knowledge is indispensable to our self-recognition and self-esteem. He added: "The enemies are different from us, and their customs are not our customs. Foreigners bring the most typical difference. ”

The trouble for foreigners is that often this person is indeed foreign — not only that their habits are very different, but above all, that they live outside our sovereign domain, which we cannot reach or control over their place of residence. Whether or not they can be made enemies and practice our hostility is not entirely up to us (unless, of course, they cross borders and intend to settle among us). If sovereignty is part of the self-will of the ruler in the "theory of determination," then many foreigners cannot be enemies in the qualified Echo sense. In many cases (perhaps all?) It is better to search, find, or invent an enemy in the vicinity of the home, especially in the doorway. Enemies within sight are easier to understand for many reasons than imagined with little sight or hearing (especially easier to control and manipulate). There was already such a situation in the Middle Ages. This function of the enemy of the Christian state was perfectly performed by the pagans, the Saracens, and the Jews, who all lived within the confines of the court and church that appointed them. Today, in an age of greater preference for exclusion than tolerance, when the means of exclusion are rapidly becoming an almost mechanical matter, it is easier and more attractive to choose an internal enemy.

Among those who have become or are pursuing to become strongmen, the most popular option for the enemy is "establishment." This is a true, complete "meta-selection", that is, through this selection, other choices can be determined by associations and derivations. The "establishment" is a smoky, incompletely defined collection that can easily be dissected. And these are people who have lived longer than they were in their time, and they are basically the kind of people who should have been recorded in the annals of history as selfish, hypocritical people and incompetent losers. In a nutshell: "establishment" represents a disgusting, disgusting, unattractive past, while strongmen who are ready to send these things to the garbage mountains to which they deserve to belong represent a guide to a new beginning. In the past they were none of them, and after that, they were everything.