What has come to be called "neoliberalism", or "globalisation" ignores communities. Before this experiment was devised, mainly to fix the ongoing profitability crisis in capitalism, most first-world communities had secure work, a regular routine organised around this process, and a social safety net one could rely upon to some degree if things went wrong.

Neoliberalism, by deifying the free market, eats away at those institutions. Big labour conglomerates are bad for profits, because workers have collective bargaining power. Anybody who believes the EU's policies on the freedom of movement are built on anti-racist sentiment are idealising an institution designed with very different ideas.

For anybody sensible, their recent treatment of refugees should effectively do away with any notion whatsoever that the EU is anti-racist in sentiment. In fact, the EU enshrines neoliberalism as an ethic, and adds an extra layer of anti-democratic sentiment for good measure. I have no problem with those who believe the UK should "remain to reform" the EU - although I am sceptical about whether that can ever happen. Ejector Seat has no truck with those who lazily idealise the EU, believing it to be some kind of socialist utopia though.

The neoliberals have also outsourced most of the labour-intensive factory work that served as a backbone for the working classes. However terrible factory work may have been, or mining or whatever, it was nonetheless a place where the working classes could convene, organise and challenge the capitalist classes together. Unions are in trouble because of the lack of solid working-class occupations, and because of undercutting from EU agency workers. In the place of factory work, tertiary industries have developed - largely, what these companies do is sell the junk produced in slave-like sweatshop conditions in the "developing" world, like India, China, Bangladesh and elsewhere. We also have, in place of the proletariat, a "precariat", reliant on the generosity of corporations to provide them with ad hoc work.

Any criticism of the regime that has come to dominate global society since the 1980s usually relies on two main assumptions. Firstly, there is the "invisible hand." This footnote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations" suggests that a free market secretly redistributes its wealth to the poverty stricken. All the money stashed in a billionaire's bank account benefits every single person on the planet, because an "invisible hand" makes that money available to everybody. Adam Smith says that

"the rich… consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species." (Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations)

So, the rich can get rich because they divide their wealth with the poor to produce all improvements. This may be true up to a point - certainly, humanity has, at least in a material sense, benefited hugely from capitalism's tendency to promote productive competition. However, when that productive capital poses a threat to the survival of the species itself, and when that productive process no longer serves the interests of providing for people living in conditions of scarcity, is capitalism still a viable option as the "least worst" form of government?

Obviously, Adam Smith could not have predicted society as it stands now. He assumes that the rich would spend rather than hoard their income. However, inequality has risen and risen, and has done so exponentially since the dawn of the neoliberal period. The gini coefficient is a generally recognised measure of inequality. Here's the global coefficient:

This inequality is only set to rise further and further. While productivity has expanded significantly since the 1980s, the shift towards globalisation has given the super-rich capitalist class the ability to evade taxation - the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher have also helped to foster a "greed is good" culture, where the ruthless accumulation of capital is seen as a inherently good thing. What this means is that the super-rich also have a moral imperative to get rich, and are not morally obliged or guilt-tripped into giving money to the poor.

Neoliberal and classical economics also relies heavily on the concept of the "rational actor." This, like all poisonous ideologies appear to, is based on a devastatingly destructive misinterpretation of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. This happened one with the Nazis. The Nazis believed in "social Darwinism", which was an idea that remains popular today. Simply, the poor should not be allowed to breed.

Marie Stopes, famous nowadays for her abortion clinics, originally started her abortion campaign with this purpose in mind - she wanted poor people to stop breeding, because she believed they were destroying the genetic purity of the human race. We hear similar sentiments heard today with the "chav" - a working class mother with a couple of kids and no job should not be allowed to have children. They are "irresponsible", they dress badly, they are not middle class, aspirational, they are destroying our culture, etc. etc.

That aside, "mainstream" economists assume that human beings are naturally self-interested, and that is all they are. Oddly enough, they don't say this because they believe it is necessarily true. This is one thing that makes arguing with a mainstream economist so infuriating. They say it because doing so makes their graphs work. The thing is, these graphs, linked as they are to giant algorithms that also rely on the same rational actor model, makes the entire edifice of mainstream economics completely circular in nature. It is, in other words, a gigantic myth dressed up to look like science.

I can say that mainstream economics is bollocks with added authority, given that I have written, for cash, around a dozen undergraduate economics dissertations over the years. I received no complaint whatsoever, even though I had no idea what the hell I was talking about. All that I did was shovel in enough dogma and jargon to make it look like I knew what I was saying.

But, put simply, Darwin did not say that human beings were rational actors only looking out for themselves. What he had to say about human beings is altogether more interesting than that, and it does a huge disservice to Darwin to reduce his ideas about human evolution to something as simplistic as "the toughest, most ruthless bastard in the room wins." He said this:

"In however complex a manner [the feeling of sympathy] may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend each other, it will have been increased, through natural selection; for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring."

Darwin believed that human beings had two, contradictory components. On the one hand, they had to be selfish enough to survive as individuals. That is what neoliberalism says that "human nature" consists entirely of. However, on the other hand, human beings, like many other species, also have a "social being" - they "aid and defend each other."

Put simply, an angry, violent, psychopath who hoards everything and tells the world to fuck off wouldn't last long in the natural world. They would be exiled from whatever tribe they were trying to wreck and left to fend for themselves in the wild. They would be dead within a week. It is only this perverse economic system, and the ideologies that normalise greed and protect the superrich from exile, that prevents us from doing the same thing to them.

Bizarrely, this angry man is the figure that all mainstream economists assume that we all are. They are paid handsomely for spouting out this propaganda - in fact, since the global financial crash, their wages have skyrocketed.

This vision of "human nature", one that must have Darwin spinning in his grave once again, is often promoted on a plebiscite level, via social media and so on. This is because it also promotes an idea of widespread cynicism. The wise man, in our society, is mythologised as a miserable man. It is therefore much easier for lazy, non-academic, and altogether stupid people who still want to ratchet up their egos, to get easy access into the clever club by simply assuming the worst of human beings. And if you say "human beings are selfish", you are far less likely to be criticised as a dumb idealist or a dreamer than if you say "human beings are kind."

This is how austerity works as well, and how we have come to accept this programme of suffering. Austerity flatters these self-styled "realists" (those who believe human suffering is required to "fix" our economy) into believing that they are clever, and the "Corbynistas", by contrast, are dumb, young idealists who only like Corbyn because he's promising them a load of free stuff. Hence, Theresa May's "magic money tree" idea - in fact, there is a magic money tree - more a forest in fact - called quantitative easing. It has been used to bail out the banks, who conveniently overlooked the fact that a trillion dollar IOU note from a homeless tramp was a guaranteed return of income, and fiddled the expenses to cover it up. They went on to exploit information asymmetries (their knowledge of the impending collapse) to make huge profits for themselves, while the Conservative party decided to blame the poor for "overspending", and the unemployed for being feckless and not getting employment in jobs that no longer exist.

Perhaps the worst effect of the push of neoliberal ideas into the mainstream has been on levels of human suffering and alienation. The effect on the fabric of our communities and societies over the past 40 years or so has been utterly devastating. Margaret Thatcher did not merely say that society was bad - she said that it "didn't exist." Of course, what she was really talking about here was working class society - bourgeois society has never really existed, because it is a society built on consumption and the acquisition of cultural capital. However, what has happened as a result of this denial of society and of class, is that every human subject on the planet has been transformed - ideologically speaking - into a self-interested refugee of the planet itself.

This transformation of oneself, and of how one perceives one's relationship to one's surrounding society, has had a horrendously corrosive effect on human trust, on security and on our prospect of enjoying a secure future. The working classes, who were, after all, the first class to be exposed fully to this ideology, now inhabit communities dominated by despair, nihilism, addiction, debt and hopelessness. The Tories, as well as promoting this idea, were also the chief exponents of the idea that "there is no alternative" - that we are at "the end of history", and that you either comply and become a self-interested psychopathic actor in unison with the economic model, or you exile yourself from society. This mantra, parroted as it has for 40 years or so, has destroyed the spirit and hope for a better future for humankind for millions, if not billions of people.

You can read any alt-right or white supremacist diatribe to see what kind of depths neoliberal subjectivity has created - projected self-loathing for the socially excluded "white minority" is useful, because it expresses feelings of working class exclusion in an unfiltered way (BBC documentary). There is no major left-wing equivalent within the working classes, and the revolutionary left, along with the more liberal left, tend to have capitulated entirely to the aspirational ideals of Thatcherism.

Although their solutions are wrong, the "alt right", and the hate preachers do not attempt to gloss over their rage about being abandoned and having their communities destroyed by neoliberal policy. Inclusion into the far right also offers many of the things that the snobs of the liberal left do not - a sense of inclusion, a sense of community, a sense that their lives matter, as well as the lives of black people. What all of these movements demonstrate, as well as the "antifa" counter-movement against white supremacist insurgency, is that neoliberal ideals are beginning to crumble. The intense craving human beings have for social connection and / or a sense of meaning in their lives are coming out in politics - this radicalisation of youth, as always, is expressed largely through the prism of race versus class. It is imperative that any identity-based movement, such as Black Lives Matter, bases their preoccupation with racial stigmatisation on an absolute commitment to class. Otherwise, the movement will dissipate and become just another empty set of liberal gestures. ripe for colonisation by the left-liberal establishment.

For quantitative evidence, it is fairly easy to see how neoliberal policy has created untold amounts of human suffering. Anxiety and severe depression figures have skyrocketed, as have addictions (to promoted things like work, shopping, computer games, as well as the usual "evil" addictions, like drugs, pornography, etc.).

Because Darwin has been wilfully misinterpreted by mainstream economists, we find ourselves trapped in an apocalyptic malaise - a malaise that Ejector Seat believes is *the central feature of 21st century life. The solution is to begin, in however way possible, to try and reconstruct on a day-to-day level, this dualism at the heart of Darwin's theory of evolution. It is also to do away with the continued notion that addictions to different things come from different places, and that some are bad whereas others are good. When people resort to addiction, it is because there are no other options left for living a meaningful life. Addiction is a political problem, and when politicians fail, throwing the problem onto the psychological / medical communities, it is up to us, as social beings, to fill in those gaps.

Long-term, the development of the neoliberal ideology, and its continued spread into every labour market on the planet, is why capitalism must end. Otherwise, its insane doctrine will not stop until every last one of us has been exiled.