Choosing Justice, Peace, and Decency over Anti-Social Neoliberalism
By Denis Hay
In today’s world, there is a growing concern about the destructive impact of neoliberalism, an ideology that prioritizes individualism and free markets over social responsibility and collective well-being. The effects of this ideology can be seen in the widening gap between the rich and poor, the erosion of democratic values, and the devastation of our natural environment.
In the face of these challenges, we must choose justice, peace, and decency over neoliberalism. This means rejecting the idea that individuals should be solely responsible for their success or failure and recognizing that we all have a responsibility to one another and to the planet we share.
Justice demands that we work to create a fair and equal society, where everyone has access to basic needs like food, shelter, and healthcare, regardless of their income or social status. We must also address the systemic injustices that continue to harm marginalized communities, such as racism, sexism, and homophobia, and work to create a society that is inclusive and welcoming for all.
Peace requires that we reject the idea that violence and aggression are the solutions to our problems. Instead, we must work to create a culture of empathy, respect, and dialogue, where conflicts can be resolved peacefully and without resorting to violence. This means promoting peaceful solutions to conflicts, supporting diplomacy and cooperation, and recognizing the interconnectedness of all human beings.
Decency demands that we reject the culture of greed and self-interest that is at the heart of neoliberalism. Instead, we must work to create a society that values compassion, kindness, and cooperation. This means rejecting the idea that profit is the only goal of human activity and recognizing that our actions have an impact on others and the world around us.
Choosing justice, peace, and decency over neoliberalism is essential for creating a better world. It is up to all of us to work towards a society that values the well-being of all its members, and that recognizes the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. By promoting these values, we can build a world that is just, peaceful, and sustainable for generations to come.
#ChooseJustice #PromotePeace #UpholdDecency #RejectNeoliberalism
References:
Identity, Resilience and Social Justice: Peace-making for a Neoliberal Global Order, Taylor and Francis.
Neoliberalism and Social Justice, Springer.
Understanding Neoliberalism as a System of Power:
John Howard’s investor-state: neoliberalism and the rise of inequality in Australia, University of New England.
Towards a post-neoliberal social citizenship, Wiley.
Neoliberalism is dead and the Australian political right killed it, The Australia Institute.
Denis Hay: At 82 years young, I stand as a testament to the enduring power of dedication and belief in social justice. My journey has been shaped by a deep conviction that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and that equal opportunities for thriving should be a universal right.
My beliefs are not just ideals; they are the driving force behind my active engagement in advocating for change. I am deeply concerned about the pressing issue of climate change, recognizing its urgency and the need for immediate, collective action. This is not just a matter of policy for me, but a moral imperative to safeguard our planet for the generations to come.
As an administrator of several Facebook pages, I use my platform to challenge the prevailing neoliberal ideology, which I see as a destructive force against our society and environment. My goal is to foster a political system that truly serves the people, ensuring access to essential needs like decent housing, secure and well-paid jobs, education, and healthcare for all.
In this chapter of my life, my mission is clear: to leave behind a world that is better and more just for my grandchildren and future generations. It is a commitment that guides my every action, a legacy of compassion and advocacy that I hope will inspire others to join the cause.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
16 comments
Login here Register here-
Baby Jewels -
Patricia -
Terence Mills -
Andrew Smith -
Fred -
Phil Pryor -
Terence Mills -
Mr Overitt -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
Michael Taylor -
A Commentator -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis
Return to home pageThanks Denis. You said it all for me. Unfortunately, the way it’s looking, we won’t be leaving behind a better world for our grandchildren, as they seem to have been abandoned by neoliberalism. In the meantime, we have to do everything in our power to open the eyes of those with a neoliberal bent. Because too much harm has already been done.
Well said, it is endemic, the view that it is every person for themselves.
Several years ago I caught up with a friend whom I had known for several years, but with whom I had not had any contact for 25 years and I was appalled at his change in attitude.
His view was that everything he did was for him and his family and he had no obligation to consider anyone else, and everyone else should do the same, that people who were less well off than him were just lazy bludgers and deserved to starve, that government was wrong to provide money to people who were not able to work, if they could not get a job they didn’t deserve to be supported by his tax dollars and that it was fine to walk all over those who were less able than him for him to get what he wanted. His view was “I look after my own and I am not obliged to look after anyone else”.
There was no way to discuss community with him, no way for him to acknowledge that sometimes things happen to people through not fault of their own and that as a tribe we humans have an obligation to ensure that people who need help, get it. For him it was everyman for himself and damn everyone else.
Suffice to say our friendship was not rekindled.
Unfortunately this view, to varying degrees, is prevalent within our country, the fact that 60% of eligible voters refused to change the constitution to acknowledge that listening to First Nations people about those things that effect them would be a positive, shows that my former friend’s views are entrenched in our society.
I probably have another 20 years on this planet and I cannot see that these views are going to be changed in that time and it fills me with sadness that my children and grandchildren will be living in those times.
Barry Jones gives an interesting and compelling analysis in his article in The Saturday Paper
“Donald Trump’s political genius was made for these times. He is a useful symbol of the state of the world. He promises the capacity to turn back the clock – to appeal to people who feel marginalised by modernity, science, universalism, racial equality and affirmative action, and who resent being condescended to by educated people.”
He could have added that Murdoch’s Fox News in the US and Sky after Dark here are doing all they can to foster anger and resentment from that marginalised group.
Terence Mills: Recall Howard spoke of a ‘relaxed and comfortable’ Australia a generation ago, then recently used Whitlam’s ‘maintain the rage’ against progress and change….
Patricia: Ayn Rand amongst the post WWII ideologues railed against the state, welfare etc., then spent her twilight years dependent upon social security….
Caught in a ‘do loop’?
Asked the better half “how do you think the world is going” and got “it has lost its moral compass”. Then discussed neoliberalism and the consensus was in line with Patricia – it’s endemic as the under 25s know nothing other and unless they have had parents that set good standards of behavior, respect of others and sense of community they will have “me/my” centrism.
Then you hear the US has vetoed a call by the UN for a ceasefire, (don’t know if I heard correctly but they were the only dissenter) and then you know without doubt neoliberalism is entrenched.
Andrew, Ayn R, a female impersonator, was a warped version of a twisted and defective personality heavily stunted, scarred, malnutrional of essentials, who went the “wrong” way.., after a very difficult life involving humiliations, starvations, dislocations, Only Freud should have read her and commented, but, he didn’t. She deserved a pitiful pension, out of sarcastic pity. AS for the murdering misfit USA, What shit.
Fred
Britain abstained, otherwise it was unanimous until the US imposed its veto : the curse of the Security Council Veto !
The veto power was never in the UN Charter and was only granted at the insistence of five permanent members of the Council : the U.S., China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom.
Arguably this veto has been responsible for more human suffering than any other instrument of the UN.
And the US approved delivering another 13000 rounds of ‘bunker buster’ shells to Israel, we are told to assist in their ‘self defence’. These shells serve only one purpose and that is to destroy infrastructure mainly apartment blocks where people live.
“13000 rounds of ‘bunker buster’ shells”, a new demolition technique? quicker, cheaper than traditional demo methods favored by builders, with the bonus of no time wasted in setting up controlled implosions and all the council and environmental permissions that go with brownfield redevelopments. Looking at the situation through the eyes of genocidal maniacs it probably makes sense but in my eyes the Israeli gov deserves zero respect.
It is interesting that we talk so much about the US vetoing a security council ceasefire in Palestine, without recalling Russia’s veto regarding Ukraine.
As well as the UNGA vote of 143 to 5 against Russia
AC is trying to establish a commonality between two peer adversaries slugging it out in Ukraine, and the mightiest empire in history assisting the obliteration of an entire people in Gaza who have no naval or air support.
Does he have no boundaries? No sense of perspective? Does he see the suffering of the people of Gaza as a point-scoring opportunity?
It seems when SD can’t find a reason to argue he invents one
Among the points I’ve made in the past are-
* The Israel response to the Hamas terror attack on 7 October appears disproportionate
* There should be a ceasefire
* There is no right side in this conflict
* It’s a pity that the Arab League (and their predecessors) didn’t figure out how to reach a compromise given that the 2 state solution was foreshadowed 30 years before the legal creation of Israel
AC has defended using the suffering of the people of Gaza as a point-scoring exercise by stating that “The Israel response to the Hamas terror attack on 7 October appears disproportionate.”
Appears disproportionate???
Remember the TV ad they’re showing lately of the bloke on the toilet? AC would have had the same look on his face when he squeezed that sentence out.
AC, I see the problem:
I’m with you when it comes to despising Putin and being appalled at the Russian invasion of Ukraine, however when we talk about Palestine or America etc we receive one of your, “But what about Putin…”.
Whilst I’m aware that you are appalled at Israel’s killing of Palestinian children, your deflections give a different impression.
MT, a few days ago I posted a link to an interview with a Palestinian peace activist.
His position is one I entirely agree with.
He said the only way to peace is to understand the legitimacy of the positions of both Palestine and Israel. He said it isn’t necessary to agree with either (or both), but understanding is essential for peace.
It was a thoughtful and well articulated view of the complexity of this conflict.
So if I observe a comment that ignores the legitimacy of Israel’s perspective, I’ll point it out.
If I observe a fulsome condemnation of the US for exercising it’s veto.power in the UNSC, I’m likely to point out that the US isn’t alone in excercising this system of veto.
I also think it’s disappointing that so much attention and effort has moved to Israel and Palestine – away from maintaining focus on Putin’s brutal and fascist expansionism.
SD, I’ve outlined my position above.
Please listen the attached interview and let me know what you disagree with, because I agree with Aziz Abu Sarah
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/melbourne-mornings/palestinian-peace-activist-aziz-abu-sarah-with-raf-epstein/103194260
I listened to the audio, and I agree with everything that was said. I have nothing but respect for the person interviewed.
But his position had a serious weakness. A weakness that is common to many peace activists, a certain naivety.
At one point he spoke of “us” as being those who believe in peace and justice, and referred to those who are not “us” as “those who are not there yet.” This shows a disconnect from geo-political reality. Many of those in positions of power have no intention of getting “there” and will resist all pressures to get “there.”
Naivety was also evident in non-recognition of the role of the US in the ongoing violence. I think the US got one mention in passing, just as the Nabka (the violent killing and dispersal of Palestinians in 1948) got a mention in passing. History cannot be pushed aside like that.
The discussion focused on what individuals can do, which is fine, but it avoided discussion of the US interest in prolonging the killing. The activist was critical of the lack of progress after years of often bloody confrontation, concluding that violence is futile, but he thinks that goodwill between individuals, acknowledging opposing narratives, is a better way. It certainly is a way, and should be utilised, but to think that it will bring about vast change is just naive.
Why naive?
Because the US wants the violence to continue.
The US could stop this with one phone call, but instead of picking up the phone it provides more bombs.
But in regard to the audio, the peace activist gave no evidence of ” the legitimacy of Israel’s perspective” as AC put it. This is evidence for my belief expressed elsewhere here, that audio and video are not useful media for the expression of serious material. They are wide open to misunderstanding.