Neoliberalism

Discuss the latest political news.
Post Reply
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Would the panel like to provide a current definition of Neoliberalism? The word gets bandied about a lot and I suspect different factions use it to mean very different things, it would be illuminating to find agreement. We could, for example, find pithy examples of its use rather like a dictionary might, and from that set of examples we might then agree either a core meaning common to all or discover there's several distinct contradictory common uses.

In order to focus on the distinction of the term we might have to also give working definitions for the following words as well. These words are only useful if they reflect different circles on a political Venn diagram. Ideally we ought to be able to construct exactly that diagram by the time we're done, I certainly couldn't do that at the moment.

Democrat

Republican

Liberal

Socialist

Conservative

Radical

They've all meant different things to different generations. Where do the words stand today?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

There is, for example, a peculiarity about Radical, in that it has no meaning on its own.

You can be a radical socialist or a radical conservative. Radical is a modifier, it means "reverting to the roots" of a political philosophy.

It has been used in the sense of Firebrand in the past, possibly because each generation only applies Radical as shorthand for one group, but Radical Socialism is a very different beast to Radical Conservatism. Describing anyone as a radical fails to indicate where he lies on the political spectrum but I suspect it implies he's further from the center ground than he would be without the label. Maybe that would not in fact be true, perhaps radicals are actually the ones occupying the centre ground.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

I take it that Conservative and Liberal are complementary labels, though how they apply to current usage has me very confused. A Conservative wishes to retain existing mechanisms with as few changes as would be practical. Given that the past has frequently been paternalist, antisocial, pyramidal, with a rich powerful elite ruling over a mass of hungry unorganized workers, conserving that system strikes me as being radically conservative.

I have no idea what conservatism would be like if it rejected its roots. The thread needs dialogue if this notion is to be developed, I can't build it on my own, I'm too ignorant. Does a conservative invariably hanker after the good old days while a socialist is always trying to build a better tomorrow? We need examples to demonstrate the truth.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Then we have Liberal. A Liberal, I take it, would like the minimum degree of government and law that would be consistent with whatever society actually wants to achieve. I'm bringing to mind the two underlying legal frameworks which Western philosophy has so far developed, either "You can do anything you like if it's not forbidden by law" or "you can do nothing unless it's explicitly permitted by law". As far as I can see, the first of those is "Liberal" and the other is - I'm searching for a word but the only one I can think of at the moment is "French". No, I'm not joking, again I'm merely out of my depth.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neoliberalism

Post by gmc »

They also mean different things on either side of the atlantic.

The word socialist in particular gets used as an insult yet when you ask someone (in the UK that is) condemning socialism why they want to do away with the nhs, the welfare state, free education, social housing workers rights etc etc they seem unaware that those are all socialist policies ad in their day highly radical concepts. Adam Smith was a socialist for all he is regarded as the father of capitalism he also advocated free education,access to tertiary education health care, the education of females A healthy well educated workforce that is capable of progressing is an economic asset spending on education is an investment in the future. mow we have an education secretary that sees the purpose of education as being to prepare people for the workforce while cutting back spending.

It's the same with liberal. Who in their right minds is against equal rights for all, free speech freedom from religious persecution yet liberal is a swearword used to undermine those very things. The religious right - and right wing is a very european term when the church and deputies supporting the king sat on the right of the french parliament - now argue against those every hard won concepts and liberties be it the catholic church in poland and ireland or the protestant churches in northern ireland or the USA.

Democrat republican? I'm not an American I can't help you there. Labour are losing it in scotland because they are not socialist any more nor are the lobdems liberal they just tell lies.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

gmc;1526325 wrote: those are all socialist policies ad in their day highly radical concepts.


I'd say they were highly innovative concepts when they were begun. I can't think of any previous socialist political movements in Britain before industrialisation - 1750, if we want a starting date. Who was socialist before 1750? A few fringe elements like the Levellers? The men of Kent on the field of Blackheath in 1381 under John Ball and Wat Tyler? I can think of no political group, just those very few momentary glimpses of socialist thought which immediately disappeared.

Perhaps our use of words differs? I get the feeling you might use radical to mean novel, many people seem to. It may be the current meaning, I'm not sure. If it does mean novel then I don't know how it got there. I thought Socialism back then was a new untested approach to governance but you describe it as highly radical. Do you mean radical as new and untested, or do you mean it was going back to a core principle which existed in the past?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

When I refer to neoliberal/neoliberalism, I am referring to Reagan Economics/Reagan Democrats, Clinton Economics/Clintonites. That encompasses the two main US political parties and reveals that there really is no daylight philosophically between them, other than the difference of the industries preferred by each party. For example. Today's Republicans rally around and support fossil fuels, gun manufacturers, ultra-religious Christianity, while Democrats rally around and support The AMA, Insurance, pharma. Both parties support each other's preferred sectors in the background, but they openly promote those sectors that feed them monetarily through political support mainly.

Both party establishments support and advocate anything the Pentagon/military complex demand of them, and both have unwavering support for American Exceptionalism, Nationalism, Patriotism.

Donal Trump is as much a Neoliberal as Nancy Pelosi. The difference between them is an illusion created by a mindset that is capitalistic at its core. This mindset is what those who support Trump call The Deep State, though they don't really understand what they mean by the term outside of the intelligence community.

One site I found is https://corpwatch.org/article/what-neoliberalism "Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Ahso!;1526329 wrote: When I refer to neoliberal/neoliberalism, I am referring to Reagan Economics/Reagan Democrats, Clinton Economics/Clintonites. That encompasses the two main US political parties and reveals that there really is no daylight philosophically between them, other than the difference of the industries preferred by each party. For example. Today's Republicans rally around and support fossil fuels, gun manufacturers, ultra-religious Christianity, while Democrats rally around and support The AMA, Insurance, pharma. Both parties support each other's preferred sectors in the background, but they openly promote those sectors that feed them monetarily through political support mainly.

Both party establishments support and advocate anything the Pentagon/military complex demand of them, and both have unwavering support for American Exceptionalism, Nationalism, Patriotism.

Donal Trump is as much a Neoliberal as Nancy Pelosi. The difference between them is an illusion created by a mindset that is capitalistic at its core. This mindset is what those who support Trump call The Deep State, though they don't really understand what they mean by the term outside of the intelligence community.

One site I found is https://corpwatch.org/article/what-neoliberalism


I agree entirely that you've described the current usage, yes.

Perhaps I'm trying to establish the reason the word Neoliberal is applied to this way of thinking in America.

Would you agree there is a common thread between Neoliberal and Liberal, in that both seek to minimise as much legal restraint on individuals and corporations as they can achieve? My contrast is that Socialists attempt to constrain individuals and corporations for the benefit of society as a whole. Do we therefore have two Venn diagram circles using those labels, Neoliberal and Liberal in one circle and Socialist in the other, which choose to overlap as little as possible?

Underlying Neoliberal and Conservative is the question of whether both hanker after the good old days when individuals and corporations were unrestrained before there was the breakup of monopoly capitalism, the tearing apart of the railroads and phone companies. If both have this same objective, to allow these monopolies (like Facebook and Google and Microsoft, for instance), then I suggest both Neoliberal and Conservative circles on our Venn diagram have a pretty substantial overlap.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

gmc;1526325 wrote: Who in their right minds is against equal rights for all
Ah. Well. There you open an extra can of worms. Practically everyone in modern politics is against equal rights for all. I'll take America as my example because it's like knocking over coconuts at the fairground.

If you live in America but you aren't allowed to register as a citizen, you have no right to participate in the political system at all. There are major disincentives to even participate in the legal economy. This exclusion applies to at least 5% of the entire population and it has an equivalence in Britain.

If you live in America but you're in jail, or (increasingly) you have previously been convicted of a sufficiently serious crime, you have no right to participate in the political system at all. This exclusion applies to at least another 2% of the entire population and also has an equivalence in Britain.

The present course of American politics is to exclude groups of people from equal rights. There's talk of requiring an otherwise qualified elector to have accommodation before being allowed to vote, to have an income, to pay taxes, there's quite a list of proposed modifications to the electoral franchise. The accommodation one already applies as far as I know.

Finally, in both America and Britain if you aren't yet 18 years old you have no right to participate in the political system either. You're treated the same way criminals and unregistered aliens are.

Equal Rights For All is a mantra which has no meaning unless the exclusions are made very clear while chanting it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

spot;1526330 wrote: Perhaps I'm trying to establish the reason the word Neoliberal is applied to this way of thinking in America.Personally, I use the label for purposes of impact. "Liberal" means nothing more than 'left of center' by today's media, and has very little significance. Saying "neoliberal" causes people to say "what's this?". After "neoliberal" has lost its impact, we can change it to something different like, say, "Pissheadliberalism". spot;1526330 wrote: Would you agree there is a common thread between Neoliberal and Liberal, in that both seek to minimise as much legal restraint on individuals and corporations as they can achieve?I would.spot;1526330 wrote: My contrast is that Socialists attempt to constrain individuals and corporations for the benefit of society as a whole.I'd agree.spot;1526330 wrote: Do we therefore have two Venn diagram circles using those labels, Neoliberal and Liberal in one circle and Socialist in the other, which choose to overlap as little as possible?I'd say that's probably accurate. spot;1526330 wrote: Underlying Neoliberal and Conservative is the question of whether both hanker after the good old days when individuals and corporations were unrestrained before there was the breakup of monopoly capitalism, the tearing apart of the railroads and phone companies. If both have this same objective, to allow these monopolies (like Facebook and Google and Microsoft, for instance), then I suggest both Neoliberal and Conservative circles on our Venn diagram have a pretty substantial overlap.Agreed.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Ahso!;1526334 wrote: Personally, I use the label for purposes of impact. "Liberal" means nothing more than 'left of center' by today's media, and has very little significance. Saying "neoliberal" causes people to say "what's this?". After "neoliberal" has lost its impact, we can change it to something different like, say, "Pissheadliberalism".


When I see the word Neoliberal my immediate reaction is to ask who they are the new form of, and the word itself says New Liberal. I think there should be a historical grounding, a continuity. The word itself says a Neoliberal is a new form of something earlier which was called a Liberal, it can't be dissociated from Liberal. History is everything, I'm not going to understand today unless I know how it happened.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

spot;1526337 wrote: When I see the word Neoliberal my immediate reaction is to ask who they are the new form of, and the word itself says New Liberal. I think there should be a historical grounding, a continuity. The word itself says a Neoliberal is a new form of something earlier which was called a Liberal, it can't be dissociated from Liberal. History is everything, I'm not going to understand today unless I know how it happened.I'm well aware of the "neo" aspect of the label. However, unlike most Americans (and I imagine others as well) you're a thoughtful person. Americans are too comfortable being called "liberal", it's completely meaningless. Reagan's trickle-down economics was not a new concept, but it was the outing of the practice in the minds of average Americans who saw it as something new. This helped forge today's mindset of anything capitalistic is okay, when it's not. That is the "neo" part of the label.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

Ahso!;1526339 wrote: I'm well aware of the "neo" aspect of the label. However, unlike most Americans (and I imagine others as well) you're a thoughtful person. Americans are too comfortable being called "liberal", it's completely meaningless. Reagan's trickle-down economics was not a new concept, but it was the outing of the practice in the minds of average Americans who saw it as something new. This helped forge today's mindset of anything capitalistic is okay, when it's not. That is the "neo" part of the label.IOW, the average American can no longer hide behind ignorance of economic policy, it's out there in the open since Reagan. The fact is that today's "liberals" are just as much to blame for the current state of inequality as any politician they can name, whether it be Trump, Bush, Cruz - any of them. That's the new part.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

I'd have thought it was inevitable that the current state of inequality is a consequence of a Liberal political position, or Neoliberal in an American setting. That position dictates minimal interference in the marketplace. The rich, corporate or individual, can do whatever they want in such a setting. Restraint on corporations or individuals is dictated by a need for social equilibrium.

However, there's an American I have long admired, John Rawls, who uses "liberal" in an entirely different way to my suggestion, and this thread is partly an attempt on my part to discover why my understanding of "liberal" is so different to, for example, the use in the Wikipedia article I just pointed at.

Partly I suspect it's a desire for many political groups to compete for the desirable epithet "liberal". It means too many things to too many people.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

spot;1526342 wrote: I'd have thought it was inevitable that the current state of inequality is a consequence of a Liberal political position, or Neoliberal in an American setting. That position dictates minimal interference in the marketplace. The rich, corporate or individual, can do whatever they want in such a setting. Restraint on corporations or individuals is dictated by a need for social equilibrium.

However, there's an American I have long admired, John Rawls, who uses "liberal" in an entirely different way to my suggestion, and this thread is partly an attempt on my part to discover why my understanding of "liberal" is so different to, for example, the use in the Wikipedia article I just pointed at.

Partly I suspect it's a desire for many political groups to compete for the desirable epithet "liberal". It means too many things to too many people.Rawls's Liberalism represents ideal Liberalism that I've always wanted to think of it as, one that I refuse to hand over to the neoliberal crowd. Thanks for the link.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Ahso!;1526344 wrote: Rawls's Liberalism represents ideal Liberalism that I've always wanted to think of it as, one that I refuse to hand over to the neoliberal crowd. Thanks for the link.


Perhaps we can agree there are two meanings of "liberal" then. One is the humanist liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment which focused on the abolition of privilege ("private law") for entitled wealth, the church and aristocrats. Wikipedia discusses this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism and distinguishes it from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_li ... ted_States which is perhaps descended from the former but bears very little resemblance to it as far as I can see. This is why discussions of political standpoints trips up so easily. Two philosophies, one label.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

I agree there are two meaning, which is why I use "neoliberal" when describing today's mainstream occupants of the democratic party establishment.

Neoliberal is appropriate because what is referred to today as "the center" or "moderate" is actually pure capitalism, which denotes an economic, not political position. Staking out political positions such as abortion or gun rights and tying them to the capitalist center is the illusion that corporate elites have used to maintain all the neoliberals from both parties by believing they actually have different opinions. They don't when it comes to economics, which is what the center actually is.

The kneejerk reactions received by those neoliberals who call themselves democrats when Bernie Sanders' name is invoked is revealing of the ignorance these people suffer from. Sanders is nothing close to an actual socialist and is to the right of Eisenhower, which indicates just how far right we are today. Simply advocating worker's rights and addressing true substance in healthcare policy is like cooties.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neoliberalism

Post by gmc »

spot;1526328 wrote: I'd say they were highly innovative concepts when they were begun. I can't think of any previous socialist political movements in Britain before industrialisation - 1750, if we want a starting date. Who was socialist before 1750? A few fringe elements like the Levellers? The men of Kent on the field of Blackheath in 1381 under John Ball and Wat Tyler? I can think of no political group, just those very few momentary glimpses of socialist thought which immediately disappeared.

Perhaps our use of words differs? I get the feeling you might use radical to mean novel, many people seem to. It may be the current meaning, I'm not sure. If it does mean novel then I don't know how it got there. I thought Socialism back then was a new untested approach to governance but you describe it as highly radical. Do you mean radical as new and untested, or do you mean it was going back to a core principle which existed in the past?


Economic socialism as in the means of production and distribution should be owned collectively is in some ways a construct of the industrial age but notions of equal rights (OK only for some historically but inevitably the notion once it exists invariably leads on to the disenfranchised laying claims to the same rights.) goes back a very long way. That kings and governments can be changed by the people is an old concept the divine right of kings is a way of stymieing the notion. The roman republic was replaced by god emperors the chines emperor became a god as did the japanese

We also have the idea of a republic without kings and queens and where all were equal before the law you could put a pretty good case that the enlightenment was when we began to realise we had all been conned.

"Who was socialist before 1750? A few fringe elements like the Levellers? The men of Kent on the field of Blackheath in 1381 under John Ball and Wat Tyler? I can think of no political group, just those very few momentary glimpses of socialist thought which immediately disappeared."

(sorry can't get the quotes to work)

They may have disappeared but their ideas lived on and they were hardly a fringe. Thew putney debates are fascinating reading

“ For really I think that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sr, I think itt clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under. ”

— Putney Debates record book 1647, Worcester College, Oxford, MS 65. Spelling and capitalisation as in the original manuscript.

And Ireton, for the Grandees:

“ no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.[4] ”

The words of agreement of the people echoes in the american declaration of independence and poltical debate even now still bounces round that basic disagreement. I have a right to have my say, no you don;lt because you are not as rich as me.

Trouble is we have an education system that just concentrates on the doings of kings.

The vikings had their althing courts - the Icelanders still do. Celts would change the king if he wasn't up to scratch and there were quite a few queens in the mix. The notion that " ordinary" people should have a say in how they live and that the rich and powerful should not just take everything is a very old one.

If you define socialist as the idea that all should have a say and that society shpuld be run for the benefit of society as a whole economic socialism clouds the issue a bit perhaps and is used to that end. Progressive taxation is socialist and basically unfair - says who? especially if the wealth is gained by exploiting others or claiming to own the wealth of the land (oil, water etc) by right and not by just taking it.

Neoliberalism as in free market trade, deregulation of financial markets, individualisation, and the shift away from state welfare provision is a construct by the wealthy and perhaps in this case sorporations to try and get away from the ties of liberalism that would control markets to prevent cartels appearing gaining too much power or not having pesky things like employment protection or health and safety at work.

I would put it tp you that the arguments are as old as human society. Who rules and how do you decide and how do you control those who would take over. See present day america for example and will tye liberal institutions hold the line as it were.

Slightly rambling post any incoherence please blame on beer.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

"The question, “What is neoliberalism?” invites a response similar to the old canard about art: “I don’t know what it is, but I know it when I see it”. Unlike art, which seldom rears its head outside a rarified, specially designated setting, neoliberalism is everywhere, which is why we seldom acknowledge its ubiquity, even as we endure its predations on every aspect of our lives. If neoconservatism is late-stage capitalism on rage-inducing steroids, ranting about imaginary external threats, then neoliberalism is peak capitalism on hallucinogenic horse tranquilizers, dreaming about itself. Unlike its bug-eyed, more visibly bloodthirsty counterpart, neoliberalism doesn’t appear when the occasion demands it, but remains thoroughly entrenched in everything it touches, leaving nothing untouched or unscathed."

...

At least in theory, this mini-overlord, representative of the ideological framework that produced him is the opposite of Donald Trump. Glib and clever as opposed to bellicose and demented. He’s more likely to blow smoke up your ass than set off a firestorm of tweets. In practice, however, neoliberalism is more like Ivanka, unshakeable in the belief that unearned influence and privilege has the power to move mountains, or at least low-income people out of their homes, and “empower” them with the tools to oppress themselves. Neoliberalism, like the ‘spectacle’ it evolved from, mediates all social relations. It reduces them to performative, choreographed transactions in the service of an ideology that dare not speak its name for fear of inviting unwanted scrutiny into the void at its center. It has the vampire ability to elude reflection. Put a mirror in front of it and you’ll end up with a selfie that bears an uncanny resemblance to ‘The Scream’." https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/27 ... -its-name/
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Raphael
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

Neoliberalism

Post by Raphael »

The brilliant British sociologist Simon Clarke who specialises in political economy succinctly gets to the nub of a reasoned and simple working definition, as this following short excerpt shows :-



Neoliberalism emerged as an ideological response to the crisis of the ‘Keynesian welfare state’, which was precipitated by the generalised capitalist crisis associated with the end of the postwar reconstruction boom and was brought to a head by the escalating cost of the US war against Vietnam at the beginning of the 1970s . The crisis manifested itself in a slowing of the pace of global capitalist accumulation, alongside escalating inflation and a growing difficulty of financing government budget deficits, which forced governments to impose restrictive monetary policies and cut state expenditure plans.

What was seen as a mark of the abject failure of Keynesianism was acclaimed as a positive virtue by neoliberals, who reasserted the traditional liberal dogma of the purgative powers of the market amid the recession of the early 1980s, a reassertion that appeared to be justified by the subsequently resumed expansion of global capital on the basis of the further liberalisation of the world market.

END OF QUOTE



Unfortunately so called market freedom takes no account of the rapacious and treacherous nature of most power and wealth brokers . The markets become rigged for 'elite' gain. A truly free market economy is as rare as a pink spotted Unicorn .

Nevertheless I personally favour FMEs over the equally detestable 'Welfare/Regulated ' model because historically they are not as horrifically destructive ( Communism has killed at least 100 , 000 , 000 people ) and because they are the inevitable natural consequence of all human social activities -- they occur because the species needs hierarchies in which to create useful social activities .As distinct from imposed models which always turn rotten and detestable .California is an obvious US example of this disease .

Tragically, however , we have not begun to grapple with the difficulty of honestly running most hierarchies --- so they become play areas mainly for the benefit of sociopaths and psychopaths . Those at the top corrupt in terms of exerting control and looting assets .

We need philosopher kings running the markets .

But that is not about to happen any time soon .
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

Please don't tell me this is yet another iteration of you know who.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Ahso!;1526403 wrote: Please don't tell me this is yet another iteration of you know who.


I don't think we've met Raphael before, the usual suspects would have needed a brain upgrade.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Raphael
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

Neoliberalism

Post by Raphael »

Ahso!;1526403 wrote: Please don't tell me this is yet another iteration of you know who.


I wonder if it has occurred to you that not everybody may immediately share your apparent opinions , let alone with a level of dislike that you have shown toward me ,and which is rapidly being characterised by your passive/aggressive trolling .

Reply to me -- if you must --- by directly responding to the words of Simon Clarke , in this thread , or my own .Not by silly innuendo or cowardly oblique reference .

I found this site by complete chance and I am not aware of any 'home' mission statement couched in political terms .

So why have you immediately personalised matters instead of using the forum to look at wide ranging opinions and consider them on their merit --- usually measured in terms of reason and evidence and flavoured with good and polite manners and respect ?

That question is essentially rhetorical .

So why not start again and treat my posts with civility and respond when and where you wish with reasoned disagreement.Or just ignore them if you cannot meet otherwise generally accepted ways of behaving publicly .

Those that throw rocks tend to have bigger ones thrown back at them .A futile positive communication strategy, imho .

Hardly a group aim for a flourishing and healthy forum .
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

I have tried to communicate with you fairly, however, you don't identify sources, you don't provide links and you respond to questions of clarification with innuendo rather than answers (case in point - showthread.php?t=65521&p=1526395&viewfull=1#post1526395). Finally, your worst violation of all so far might be that you space prior to punctuating, and that is mildly annoying. But you're right that there are no laws against any of it, though taken as a whole is revealing to one's personality, level of education, and perhaps, youthful exuberance.

We all make judgments, and I promise not to hold yours against you.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Raphael
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

Neoliberalism

Post by Raphael »

I am feeling in a good mood and real paid work is still two hours away , so let me help you .

The reference is Simon Clarke , world famous Sociologist etc

Just read carefully and slowly .It is all there in the post .

I do a great deal of public speaking at a senior level .

The comma means , pause .

And the full stop means precisely that .

So my punctuation helps readers do what they should be doing -- either genuinely pausing or stopping momentarily .

I have noticed for some time that younger generations have poor ability when it comes to General Comprehension .

My punctuation technique which is so logical and so very useful because it acts as a small prompt to improve the chance of G Comp .

The last person to publicly query and criticise my punctuation method was the cult leader of Project Avalon .Cannot immediately remember his name but he used to work with Kerry Cassidy for Project Camelot . Believed totally in various Alien groups , abductions and project M Ultra .

A control freak , poor old fella .
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Neoliberalism

Post by LarsMac »

Raphael;1526408 wrote: I wonder if it has occurred to you that not everybody may immediately share your apparent opinions , let alone with a level of dislike that you have shown toward me ,and which is rapidly being characterised by your passive/aggressive trolling .

Reply to me -- if you must --- by directly responding to the words of Simon Clarke , in this thread , or my own .Not by silly innuendo or cowardly oblique reference .

I found this site by complete chance and I am not aware of any 'home' mission statement couched in political terms .

So why have you immediately personalised matters instead of using the forum to look at wide ranging opinions and consider them on their merit --- usually measured in terms of reason and evidence and flavoured with good and polite manners and respect ?

That question is essentially rhetorical .

So why not start again and treat my posts with civility and respond when and where you wish with reasoned disagreement.Or just ignore them if you cannot meet otherwise generally accepted ways of behaving publicly .

Those that throw rocks tend to have bigger ones thrown back at them .A futile positive communication strategy, imho .

Hardly a group aim for a flourishing and healthy forum .


Don't let AHSO!'s trolling bother you.

That's just his style of debate.

He trolls everybody.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neoliberalism

Post by Ahso! »

LarsMac;1526436 wrote: Don't let AHSO!'s trolling bother you.

That's just his style of debate.

He trolls everybody.


Not "everybody", only trolls and equivocators. I'm not guilty of the "trumped" up accusations Raffy has leveled against me. I welcomed him, invited him to continue to participate and asked a question or two, of which he has yet to respond to, and I also asked for some citations to some claims he's made, which have also gone unaddressed.

If that's trolling, then, yes, I'm a troll, and will continue to troll.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Ahso!;1526441 wrote: If that's trolling, then, yes, I'm a troll, and will continue to troll.


No, no, you do yourself an injustice. Sensitive hackles, that's all. Prickly fingers.

... Bother, how did that get through the profanity filter. ...
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Raphael
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

Neoliberalism

Post by Raphael »

Good to see the hackles wilting and the Troll costumes looking dull and dated .

One of my few real talents is the ability not to be bothered about any sort of attack levelled against me .

They roll off my back and just galvanise my counter attack sperm missiles .

I have had wars and wives and never really blinked .

End of .

So, time for a cup of chocolate and the next chapter of Percy the Pig .
Raphael
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

Neoliberalism

Post by Raphael »

Pepe ------see below ---- is a world acclaimed pundit and blogger .

Try his views for size .

Ooh er . Not good for left wingers / globalists/ communists .





Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Neoliberalism is – literally – burning. And from Ecuador to Chile, South America, once again, is showing the way.

Against the vicious, one-size-fits-all IMF austerity prescription, which deploys weapons of mass economic destruction to smash national sovereignty and foster social inequality, South America finally seems poised to reclaim the power to forge its own history.



Three presidential elections are in play.

Bolivia’s seem to have been settled this past Sunday – even as the usual suspects are yelling “Fraud!” Argentina and Uruguay are on next Sunday.

Blowback against what David Harvey has splendidly conceptualized as accumulation by dispossession is, and will continue to be, a bitch. It will eventually reach Brazil – which as it stands continues to be torn to pieces by Pinochetist ghosts. Brazil, eventually, after immense pain, will rise up again. After all, the excluded and humiliated all across South America are finally discovering they carry a Joker inside themselves.

Chile privatizes everything

The question posed by the Chilean street is stark: “What’s worse, to evade taxes or to invade the subway?” It’s all a matter of doing the class struggle math. Chile’s GDP grew 1,1% last year while the profits of the largest corporations grew ten times more. It’s not hard to find from where the huge gap was extracted. The Chilean street stresses how water, electricity, gas, health, medicine, transportation, education, the salar (salt flats) in Atacama, even the glaciers were privatized.

That’s classic accumulation by dispossession, as the cost of living has become unbearable for the overwhelming majority of 19 million Chileans, whose average monthly income does not exceed $500.

Paul Walder, director of the Politika portal and an analyst for the Latin-American Center of Strategic Analysis (CLAE) notes how less than a week after the end of protests in Ecuador – which forced neoliberal vulture Lenin Moreno to ditch a gas price hike – Chile entered a very similar cycle of protests.

Walder correctly defines Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera as the turkey in a long-running banquet that involves the whole Chilean political class. No wonder the mad as hell Chilean street now makes no difference between the government, the political parties and the police. Pinera, predictably, criminalized all social movements; sent the army to the streets for unmitigated repression; and installed a curfew.

Pinera is Chile’s 7th wealthiest billionaire, with assets valued at $2.7 billion, spread out in airlines, supermarkets, TV, credit cards and football. He’s a sort of turbo-charged Moreno, a neoliberal Pinochetist. Pinera’s brother, Jose, was actually a minister under Pinochet, and the man who implemented Chile’s privatized welfare system – a key source of social disintegration and despair. And it’s all interlinked: current Brazilian Finance Minister Paulo Guedes, a Chicago boy, lived and worked in Chile at the time, and now wants to repeat the absolutely disastrous experiment in Brazil.

The bottom line is that the economic “model” that Guedes wants to impose in Brazil has totally collapsed in Chile.

Chile’s top resource is copper. Copper mines, historically, were owned by the US, but then were nationalized by President Salvador Allende in 1971; thus war criminal Henry Kissinger’s plan to eliminate Allende, which culminated in the original 9/11, in 1973.

Pinochet’s dictatorship later re-privatized the mines. The largest of them all, Escondida, in the Atacama desert – which accounts for 9% of the world’s copper – belongs to Anglo-Australian giant Bhp Billiton. The biggest copper buyer in world markets is China. At least two-thirds of income generated by Chilean copper goes not to the Chilean people, but to foreign multinationals.

The Argentine debacle

Before Chile, Ecuador was semi-paralyzed: inactive schools, no urban transport, food shortages, rampant speculation, serious disturbances on oil exports. Under fire by the mobilization of 25,000 indigenous peoples in the streets, President Lenin Moreno cowardly left a power void in Quito, transferring the seat of government to Guayaquil. Indigenous peoples took over the governance in many important cities and towns. The National Assembly was AWOL for almost two weeks, without the will to even try to solve the political crisis.

By announcing a state of emergency and a curfew, Moreno laid out a red carpet for the Armed Forces – and Pinera duly repeated the procedure in Chile. The difference is that in Ecuador Moreno bet on Divide and Rule between the indigenous peoples’ movements and the rest of the population. Pinera resorts to outright brute force.

Apart from applying the same old tactics of raising prices to obtain further IMF funds, Ecuador also displayed a classic articulation between a neoliberal government, big business and the proverbial US ambassador, in this case Michael Fitzpatrick, a former Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere matters in charge of the Andean region, Brazil and the Southern Cone up to 2018.

The clearest case of total neoliberal failure in South America is Argentina. Less than two months ago in Buenos Aires, I saw the vicious social effects of the peso in free fall, inflation at 54%, a de facto food emergency and the impoverishment of even solid sectors of the middle class. Mauricio Macri’s government literally burned most of the $58 billion IMF loan – there’s still $5 billion to arrive. Macri is set to lose the presidential elections: Argentines will have to foot his humongous bill.

Macri’s economic model could not but be Pinera’s – actually Pinochet’s, where public services are run as a business. A key connection between Macri and Pinera is the ultra-neoliberal Freedom Foundation sponsored by Mario Vargas Llosa, who at least boasts the redeeming quality of having been a decent novelist a long time ago.

Macri, a millionaire, disciple of Ayn Rand and incapable of displaying empathy towards anyone, is essentially a cipher, pre-fabricated by his Ecuadorian guru Jaime Duran Barba as a robotic product of data mining, social networks and focus groups. A hilarious take on his insecurities may be found in La Cabeza de Macri: Como Piensa, Vive y Manda el Primer Presidente de la No Politica, by Franco Lindner.

Among myriad shenanigans, Macri is indirectly linked to fabulous money laundering machine HSBC. The president of HSBC in Argentina was Gabriel Martino. In 2015, four thousand Argentine accounts worth $3.5 billion were discovered at HSBC in Switzerland. This spectacular capital flight was engineered by the bank. Yet Martino was essentially saved by Macri, and became one of his top advisers.

Beware the IMF vulture ventures

All eyes now should be on Bolivia. As of this writing, President Evo Morales won Sunday’s presidential elections in the first round – obtaining, by a slim margin, the necessary 10% spread for a candidate to win if he does not obtain the 50% plus one of the votes. Morales essentially got it right at the end, when votes from rural zones and from abroad were fully counted, and the opposition had already started to hit the streets to apply pressure. Not surprisingly, the OAS – servile to US interests – has proclaimed a “lack of trust in the electoral process”.

Evo Morales represents a project of sustainable, inclusive development, and crucially, autonomous from international finance. No wonder the whole Washington Consensus apparatus hates his guts. Economy Minister Luis Arce Catacora cut to the chase: “When Evo Morales won his first election in 2005, 65% of the population was low income, now 62% of the population has access to a medium income.”

The opposition, without any project except wild privatizations, and no concern whatsoever for social policies, is left to yell “Fraud!”, but this could take a very nasty turn in the next few days. In the tony suburbs of southern La Paz, class hate against Evo Morales is the favorite sport: the President is referred to as “indio”, a “tyrant” and “ignorant”. Cholos of the Altiplano are routinely defined by white landowning elites in the plains as an “evil race”.

None of that changes the fact that Bolivia is now the most dynamic economy in Latin America, as stressed by top Argentine analyst Atilio Boron.

The campaign to discredit Morales, which is bound to become even more vicious, is part of imperial 5G war, which, Boron writes, totally obliterates “the chronic poverty that the absolute majority of the population suffered for centuries”, a state that always “maintained the population under total lack of institutional protection” and the “pillaging of natural wealth and the common good”.

Of course the specter of IMF vulture ventures won’t vanish in South America like a charm. Even as the usual suspects, via World Bank reports, now seem “concerned” about poverty; Scandinavians offer the Nobel Prize on Economics to three academics studying poverty; and Thomas Piketty, in Capital and Ideology, tries to disassemble the hegemonic justification for accumulation of wealth.

What still remains absolutely off limits for the guardians of the current world-system is to really investigate hardcore neoliberalism as the root cause of wealth hyper-concentration and social inequality. It’s not enough to offer Band-Aids anymore. The streets of South America are alight. Blowback is now in full effect.
Raphael
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

Neoliberalism

Post by Raphael »

Guess that's the end of this topic .

Pepe has sealed the" Federer "-- as we say .

Game ,set and match .
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neoliberalism

Post by spot »

Raphael;1526598 wrote: Guess that's the end of this topic .

Pepe has sealed the" Federer "-- as we say .

Game ,set and match .


Each of us, of course, will have an opinion on observations placed here on our cumulative record. I mainly regard my own posts with frustration but I continue to do what I can.

But I do not think of the threads as competitive. I have often suggested that the greatest satisfaction we can get for our efforts on this site is to see how much common ground we can uncover, how many observations we can pool to which we can all subscribe. Each such nugget has been a welcome surprise.

I would also note that our individual willingness toward reflection and an open mind has been integral to this journey. Speaking for myself I can think of few positions I hold today which formed part of my world view when I registered. The act of discussion in this setting has changed my mind on many matters.

The triggering effect of occasional agents provocateurs is always to be valued. I think back to a succession of these, a couple of whom retain their pet threads to this day. The effort they have expended on behalf of their betes noires has been immense and we can only be grateful, our sole payment has been our attentive engagement with notions we would never have otherwise considered.

Truthbringer, and Six before him, hardcore consipiracists both, spent their entire waking hours for years bringing us their digested conclusions with links back to where they had last dined. The Dutch chap's multi-dimensioned astrological cosmology similarly described the future in terms of past events, though his took the form more of "this has now happened which I knew would happen because that precursor caused it". Dutch was unsatisfactory only in that he would never offer his insights before the news to which he made reference. Kautang47 brought additional and harrowing personal testimony to his reportage which cannot have been easy for him either to speak about or to have experienced in the first place.

And then we have Pahu, Frodo and the chap who knows more about the use of "three days and nights" in a biblical context than any historian before him. We have the Jehovah's Witness, though he sadly tends to bully individual members with Private Messages and then goes quiet when told not to - his name has escaped me for the moment. Glen Labella, that's the one. More predatory than contributive but we keep a protecting eye out for him, rather like we did with JJ.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Raphael
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

Neoliberalism

Post by Raphael »

Wow

I just knew the Aliens were at work everywhere and not just in Antarctica !!!!!!!

Clearly I was brought here by some outside power .It was not by chance that I became Raphael, a Guardian Angel and tremendously nice chap .

I have not dared visit the Conspiracy section yet , fearful to see the same tired madness trotted out by zealots determined to convince us of their special relationship with the Singularity .

But after a healthy lunch I might take a chance , if I can locate my vertigo medication .

I love a good conspiracy and want to further investigate the July4 ( ? from memory) California 7.1 earthquake .

Was it natural or from DEW ?

Russia ?

Retaliation for the sinking of one of their new subs.?

Regardless , that earthquake essentially did no damage to anything or anybody except cause $2 billion damage to the China Lake US Naval base .

It has been swept under the carpet but I have a near photographic memory for matters I wish to retain .

It stinks to high heaven .

So

Yes , it should be co-operation etc .

But humans are not a nice species .
Post Reply

Return to “Current Political Events”