Last night, I drew an important diagram regarding my conclusions in the previous post. Yes, I do think that “Post-Liberalism” and “Post-Capitalism,” when the two concepts are taken together as an opposition to Neoliberalism, are both lacking. It was not clear to me yesterday, but there is a clear absence of a political model that gives both concepts a coherent and consistent form.

If we are to assume that “Post-Liberalism” on the Political Right and “Post-Capitalism” on the Political Left are both meant to indicate opposition to Liberal Capitalism, what will be the political form? By “political form,” I am referring to the mode of governance that would come after Liberal Capitalism. Without a genuine political form, an observer of both ideas as a shared phenomenon must automatically assume that the mode of governance would either be an “Illiberal Democracy” or else some kind of Authoritarianism.

An “Illiberal Democracy” should be understood as a degeneration of Parliamentary Democracy, after the parliamentarian consensus had collapsed following the Populist fervor that swept into power. In the ideological language of Liberal Capitalism, Illiberal Democracy represents the descent into Authoritarianism, creating a sort of “Illiberal Capitalism.”

Of course, anyone who has read my treatises will know that Liberal Capitalists never had an ideological monopoly over Democracy, nor should Parliamentary Democracy be seen as the only version. A refined Council Democracy is worthy of a try.

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: Council Democracy, Economics, Finance, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Socialist Finance, Third Place, Work-Standard