Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Neoliberalism

  1. #11
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    36,295
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    08:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    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|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    England's troubles will increase until the bishops open Joanna Southcott's box.
    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  2. #12
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    10,044
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    03:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    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

  3. #13
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    10,044
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    03:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    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

  4. #14
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    36,295
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    08:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    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|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    England's troubles will increase until the bishops open Joanna Southcott's box.
    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  5. #15
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    10,044
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    03:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    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

  6. #16
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    36,295
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    08:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    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..._United_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|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    England's troubles will increase until the bishops open Joanna Southcott's box.
    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  7. #17
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    10,044
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    03:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    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

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,516
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    08:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    10,044
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    03:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    "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...peak-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

  10. #20
    Banned Raphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    314
    Local Date
    01-20-2020
    Local Time
    08:18 PM

    Re: Neoliberalism

    Register to remove this ad.
    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 .

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts