Neo-liberalism & Socialism: The 4 gods That Failed

Neo-liberalism, Socialism, Post-modernism, Ultra-nationalism. The 4 gods of modernity did not live together in harmony, but everything changed anyways when reality struck.

Why am I writing all of this grandiose talk about failing gods, a supernova effect, and a different take on politics. To summarize my view simply:

Modern political ideologies have reached their ends over the past 200 years.

There is a need for a paradigm shift in political thinking but I am not creative enough to propose a new paradigm. Instead I want to set the stage.

I want to build an environment where others can build new paradigms.

To that end, I wrote these four fundamental posts to cover the ideological basis of The Forward Party:

1. The Vision: The supernova effect.

2. The Ends: The 9 foundations.

3. The Means: The 6 attitudes.

4. The Reason: this post.

Today, broadly speaking, there are 4 ideologies that form the pantheon of political thought, the first 2 are economic and the other 2 are social. All of them promised utopia then failed miserably at different points:

1. Neo-liberalism: Failed in 2008 (Great Financial Crisis)

2. Socialism: Failed in 1991 (Fall of the USSR)

3. Ultra-nationalism: Failed in 1945 (End of WW2) & before & since

4. Post-modernism: Currently flailing around. (Update: Failed on 2024 Trump's win.)

In the past they have been mixed and matched in many ways, but overall the result of their failure in the present is rising tension and desperation globally. Desperation that risks tearing societies apart.

Do note that I'm speaking about the Western side of the story here. Globally the journey is a bit different, some had it really good, others made decent gains, a few saw no improvement, and a handful sharply declined.

So why do I call them gods?

Because their advocates treat them as such. With the visible decay in quality of life visible worldwide, most public figures are insisting that the solution is blind faith in maximizing one of the 4 while expecting the result to be different this time...

Insanity.

Below is a brief summary of each, including their promise, their successes, their failures, and the lessons we at The Forward Party learned from them.

Stay tuned for dedicated full posts on each topic in the near future.

Neo-liberalism

The current big one running the show. I am well aware that no ideology can be reduced to one sentence, but their spirit can be so this is the working definition I use:

Neo-liberalism aims to minimize the role of government in society broadly and the economy specifically

Neo-liberalism claims to embody classical Capitalism as described by Adam Smith. (I think they miss Smith's point but that's a different topic)

The Promise The promise is that more free markets and more free trade will guarantee prosperity, liberty, peace, etc. Neo-liberalism became a god with the mission to build a utopia where the 'invisible hand' of the free market & capitalism can solve all our problems. To reach that end Neo-liberals propose cutting regulations, reducing taxes, limiting public services, weakening unions, and promoting free trade.

Neo-liberal economics is the dominant ideology today. Aside from its prominence in global organizations like the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc., its influence is even visible in the economies of countries that "reject the West" like China and Russia.

The Successes

Once it took hold in the 1980s, business activity exploded, the economy started expanding once again, wealth was created globally, and material goods became significantly cheaper. Instead of fighting over resources, trade between countries exponentially rose.

To its supporters, it appeared that history ended and that Western neo-liberalism is THE system. It was only a matter of time until all countries accepted the neo-liberal faith.

The Failures Beneath the surface however, middle class jobs were bled out, wages stagnated, wealth inequality accelerated, infrastructure deteriorated, and financial speculation took root. This had been ongoing from the beginning, but shifting expectations and cheaper goods kept things manageable for decades.

2008 was the rude awakening. On the ground, people got squeezed even further. They lost their jobs, their savings, and never recovered their quality of life since. On screens and graphs the economy recovered but it was a K-shaped recovery. The upper echelon did better than ever and dragged the metircs up, while the majority sunk further down. The 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement and its failure symbolized the "masses" losing faith in the neo-liberal god who betrayed them.

The final strike is the ongoing wave of deglobalization spearheaded by the US and China geo-political feud. The promise of free trade bringing global peace and harmony has been broken. It appears the neo-liberal god has failed even his most dedicated acolytes...

How much lower can he sink appears to be the only question that remains?

The Lessons

There are a few key take aways that we at The Forward Party took from neo-liberalism's rise and decline:

1. Free markets are excellent for short and mid-term products and services.

2. Free trade is a double-edged sword and must be handled with care.

3. Excessive de-regulation opens the flood gates of destructive speculation and the financialization of the economy.

Socialism

The perpetually soon-to-be big one. I am well aware that no ideology can be reduced to one sentence, but their spirit can be so this is the working definition I will be using:

Socialism aims to spread the costs and benefits of modernity across as many people as possible

Some Socialists see it as a step towards communism, most Socialists see it as an end-goal.

The Promise

The promise is relatively simple. Society as a whole would prosper more if the benefits of modern labour were shared between those who made them instead of going to a handful of rich people. To its strongest advocates, Socialism became a god, one with the mission to build a utopia where 'the people' control industry, share in its prosperity equally, and together solve all our problems.

How to reach that end was an entirely different question though, and why there seems to be more definitions of Socialism than historical examples of societies adopting it. In the past, most sought revolution. Today, most supporters of Socialism in the West seek to achieve it through democratic means and see democracy as a necessity to its success.

The Successes

Politically, Socialism was the most successful in Russia and China at the beginning of the 20th centuries. In both cases it took the revolutionary route of overthrowing the old regime and replacing it with a "dictatorship of the people".

The USSR through its massive collectivist programs between 1920 and 1960 was able to rapidly industrialize, avoided the recession of the 1930s, provided huge quality of life improvements to many people, and overtook the West in some critical technological feats.

With USSR support, socialist movements were gaining steam across all continents by the 1960s. To its supporters it appeared that it was only a matter of time until everyone embraced the Socialist faith.

China's story is a bit more convoluted and not as successful during that period of time, so I will skip over it here.

The Failures

Beneath the surface however, the party became the new nobility, the first among equals. Bureaucratic structures were built that disincentivized innovation, debate, and improvement in most state operations. Political life was crushed by a heavy-handed internal security regime. And even though they caught up to the West quickly in the past, they failed to overtake it long-term, and in time what once glittered was tarnished. Failures in planning led to famines, the drying up of the Aral sea, the stagnation of technology, and on and on...

The USSR entered decades of stagnation starting in the late 60s where it kept up with most Western military development but fell behind on every other metric, and in that environment smuggled consumer goods came to symbolize the prosperity of the outside world.

This was no secret, party elites in both the USSR and China saw the signs of decline and tried to fix it.

In the 1970s Mao in China believed that incompatible cultural elements were the issue and a cultural revolution was needed. This resulted in a lot of violence and regression.

In the 1980s, two attempts at reforming Socialism took place.

In the USSR, they focused on political liberalization, and some economic lee-way. A mix of corruption, lack of co-operation by hardliners, and the reform measures themselves being too shallow led to the utter failure of the project. The result was a complete collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR itself.

In China, they focused on economic liberalization, and some political lee-way. The political lee-way would be limited to debates within the party and crushed outside of it. The economy however would be given a much larger degree of freedom. Private enterprise and profit motives would be allowed as long as they stayed within broad but strict government guidelines. The Chinese Communist party's ideology was rebranded as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" and it proved successful as we can see today, but in the process the Socialist god died.

In China the Socialist god looks too similar to the Neo-Liberal god. For the sake of success he became the very thing he swore to destroy, the only divergence is that in China he rules with an iron fist where political dissent is not an option. A god who abandons his own faith is a god who admits he failed.

Today, Socialism's memory fades and so nostalgia takes root. Many who lost faith in the neo-liberal "capitalist" model, look towards socialism as an alternative that guarantees justice because there are no other alternatives.

The Lessons

There are a few key take aways that we at The Forward Party took from socialism's turbulent rise and fall:

1. Government planning is excellent for long-term investments where profits are uncertain.

2. Government planning is great for public infrastructure where wide public accessibility is more important that market efficiency.

3. Excessive control and regulation kills off the economic drive for incremental improvements.

4. A lack of government accountability erodes personal liberties.

Ultra-nationalism

The one that is always bubbling beneath the surface. I am well aware that no ideology can be reduced to one sentence, but their spirit can be so this is the working definition I will be using:

Ultra-nationalism defines a national grand narrative and believes it is fundamentally superior to all others

I make a distinction between nationalism and Ultra-nationalism because the first is a reasonable attitude, while the second is a powerful political force. So for contrast, this is the working definition of nationalism I use:

Nationalism is the pride in a nation's history, its present values, and its future potential

Ultra-nationalism often rises as a reaction to hard times hitting a country, like we see the world over today.

The Promise

Ultra-nationalism as a political force aims to "boost"/"revive" the glory of the country it is based in. That image of national glory is based on a grand narrative of history, a narrative that praises certain values as the foundational identity of a people. These core values are based on any one or combination of the following:

• Cultural

• Ethnic

• Religious

• Linguistic

• Civilizational

• Power

The promise of the Ultra-nationalism is then relatively simple, a country must dedicate itself to protecting and promoting these core values at all costs if it wants to solve all of its problems. To its staunchest advocates Ultra-nationalism became a god who promises a national utopia of glory, cohesion, and self-sufficiency as long as "corrupting" influences are kept at bay.

In my view ultra-nationalism is the most self-destructive ideology that plagues politics and one that will likely never go away because of just how emotionally powerful it is and how easily it can be drummed up in hard times.

The Successes

The 1930s was the most prominent era of ultra-nationalism, where the ideology appeared to succeed for a moment. In both Germany and Japan, a mix of the great depression's pains and slights by foreign countries fueled a strong us versus them mentality. The political reflection of that was a strong desire for national pride, complete self-sufficiency, and international dominance.

Over the course of just 15 years, this strong national unity (under threat of violence) created leaps in their military technology which helped them quickly conquer massive amounts of land and build an image of pride and strength.

For a brief moment in the 1940s it appeared that totalitarian Ultra-nationalism was leaps and bounds more effective than either socialism or capitalism were. Purging "undesirables" was just a necessity.

The Failures

Beneath the surface however, the fabric of society tore itself apart, the military consumed the economy, and the government buckled under the weight of its ambition. Aside from the obvious moral failures of attempting to justify genocides and political violence, Ultra-nationalism self-destructs itself faster than any other ideology.

The uncompromising nature of Ultra-nationalism leaves its governments in a position where they are hostile to the rest of the world, sometimes deliberatley, sometimes not. Even allies are viewed with mistrust and kept at a distance. This was most visible in WW2 where both Germany and Japan fought against, essentially, the rest of the world. The end result was global alliances that shattered their militaries. This broke their ambitions for international dominance.

The desire for self-sufficiency leaves Ultra-nationalist nations with one of two choices economically. They either fight to have all the resources within their border or chose to make do with what's already within their border. The first leads to self-destructive wars, the second to a state of poverty by choice.

But the biggest failure of Ultra-nationalism is the severe damage it does to society. What starts out as a desire to build national unity quickly devolves into attempts to purge "other" ideas. Personal liberties erode, fear replaces trust, and the trumpeted values turn into a parody of themselves.

It appears that the Ultra-nationalist god destroys what he claims to protect.

The Lessons

There are a few key take aways that we at The Forward Party took from Ultra-nationalism's rise and collapse:

1. A national identity helps maintain unity

2. Mandating an identity through force and oppression is self-defeating

3. Governments are better off building something future generations can be proud of than obsessing over past glory

Post-modernism

The newest addition to the pantheon. I am well aware that no ideology can be reduced to one sentence, but their spirit can be so this is the working definition I use:

Post-modernism aims to deconstruct grand narratives of modernity and the social structures built around them

If it was up to me, I would rename it to critical-modernism but I don't have such influence.

The Promise

The promise is that by placing society's historical social structures under the microscope we can identify points of bias and failure, then build a better, more just society. While Post-modernism started out in the field of literature, it has been applied to a wide variety of topics since.

Unlike the previous three ideologies, Post-modernism is not a single ideology with different interpretations, rather it manifests itself in a number of movements that focus on singular issues. Feminism, racial justice, lgbtq+ rights, etc. can be seen as examples of Post-modernism's ideals in action.

To the different threads that make it up, Post-modernism became a god with the mission to build a utopia of justice, harmony, and equality.

Post-modernist influence is most visible in Western societies today and in large cosmopolitan urban centers.

The Successes

Post-modernist ideas have been most successful in the social movements of the 1960s and beyond. Women rights expanded, racial equality made great strides, lgbtq+ people gained more acceptance, and historical grievances were acknowledged. By putting the offending systems under scrutiny, strong cases were made for the promotion justice.

Today, there are more movements that seek to identify and deconstruct existing structures of injustice. They often build on top of the previous movements.

The Failures

Beneath the surface however, many of the things that held society together frayed. Post-modernist movements focused a lot of effort on deconstruction and not enough on construction. As a result there was rarely a cohesive identity established to replace the old systems. While individual causes made valuable progress that must not be rolled back, its aversion to grand narratives failed to replace the old cohesive cultural structures with new cohesive ones.

The bigger issue however is that economic and strategic problems cannot be solved by examining and rebuilding social structures. While it is true that some Post-modernist movements lean Socialist, that seems to be more of an extension to rejecting neo-liberalism than an actual belief in Socialist economics. The failure of Post-modernist thinkers to propose any viable economic or strategic goals is why the ideology appears lost and helpless more often than not.

A lost god cannot achieve much.

The Lessons

There are a few key take aways that we at The Forward Party took from Post-modernism's rise and decline:

1. Questioning established ideas can identify their weaknesses.

2. Self-expression and tolerance are valuable in their own right and must be protected.

3. Governments are better suited to focusing on economic and strategic issues.

These are not thorough as I focused here on the bigger picture of the ideologies driving political discourse towards extremism.

Individuals, parties, and other groups mostly fall in a place where they hold a mix of views. In eras of turbulence such as the one we live in today, extremism slowly rises in spite of what individuals want. Opportunistic politicians take advantage of passionate radical elements to bolster their ranks. This however has the side effect of dragging society towards a more extremist direction.

Instead of pandering towards any of the existing ideologies, I want Balance to be at the heart of The Forward Party

This is why we want to focus on building the environment for new constructive ideologies to flourish. You can learn more about that in the blog posts below.

Thanks for reading,

Amr

Future PM of Canada (ideally)

For a Brighter Tomorrow!