Neoliberalism: The Movement That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Mihalik]

Ahh, yes, the term that first emerged as and has basically always been nothing more than an empty pejorative. .

Neo-liberalism does exist. Tho it is poorly defined and wildly misunderstood.

Neo-liberalism can more simply be described as Capitalism that adopts the aesthetics of social progressivism out of convenience.

It's really not that complicated.

It's Nike paying Colin Kaepernick millions for making ads while subcontracting its manufacturing to a factory in Bangladesh that uses child labor to make its gaudy overpriced crap.

It's Congress throwing billions at SpaceX (I'm not against spending money on space exploration and even using private contractors for it) while defunding the National Science Foundation or politically contentious projects at NASA (like climate research).

It's shit like mandating people to buy private insurance from private companies rather than just fucking setting up a tax and insurance infrastructure.

That's neo-liberalism. Capitalism with the AESTHETICS of progressivism.

Right wingers/fascists just tend to get mad at Capitalism whenever they feel that it doesn't serve their particular set of priorities and turn it into some Elders of Zion conspiratard bullshit.

[Theodarzna]

Neo-liberalism does exist. Tho it is poorly defined and wildly misunderstood.

Neo-liberalism can more simply be described as Capitalism that adopts the aesthetics of social progressivism out of convenience.

It's really not that complicated.

It's Nike paying Colin Kaepernick millions for making ads while subcontracting its manufacturing to a factory in Bangladesh that uses child labor to make its gaudy overpriced crap.

It's Congress throwing billions at SpaceX (I'm not against spending money on space exploration and even using private contractors for it) while defunding the National Science Foundation or politically contentious projects at NASA (like climate research).

It's shit like mandating people to buy private insurance from private companies rather than just fucking setting up a tax and insurance infrastructure.

That's neo-liberalism. Capitalism with the AESTHETICS of progressivism.

Right wingers/fascists just tend to get mad at Capitalism whenever they feel that it doesn't serve their particular set of priorities and turn it into some Elders of Zion conspiratard bullshit.

That actually isn't it at all. It is its own consistent ideology. And given its design and nature, the distinction between it and Fascism is basically negligable.

[Howel]

Quoting from the Article

Addressing the rest.

From the 1940s onward, the distinguishing characteristic of neoliberal doctrines and practice is that they embrace this prospect of repurposing the strong state to impose their vision of a society properly open to the dominance of the market as they conceive it.

This is not a change since the 1940s. That should be evident with the very concept that the market was fully capable of being dominated without the help of the government, before 1940 and after 1940; there wasn't a repurpose needed, the reality always existed. I am not sure if the lack of measures being put in place is much of an indication of neoliberalism anymore than it is liberalism.

While neoliberal think tanks rile up the base with debt clocks and boogeyman statistics of ratios of government expenditure to GDP, neoliberal politicians organize a host of new state activities to fortify their markets.

Ah yes, neoliberals think tanks are the ones trying to scaremonger with the massive amounts of debt that governments are racking up, not you know, every single economist on the spectrum of political leaning. Not even sure what the rest of that sentence is even supposed to imply.

hey extravagantly increase incarceration and policing of those whom they deem unfit for the marketplace.

That's certainly one hot take on why incarcerations exploded. I guess the cultural aspect of it, starting under Reagan, the racial one that has perturbed it throughout, and the religious abstinence perspective on particularly drug usages, is neglectable factors in the face of malice neoliberalism.

They expand both state and corporate power to exercise surveillance and manipulation of subject populations while dismantling judicial recourse to resist such encroachments.

This has basically nothing to do with neoliberalism. It is a whole other very hard pinpointing political philosophical question, that is being argued in this very day and age.

Neoliberals introduce new property rights (like intellectual property) to cement into place their extensions of market valuations to situations where they were absent.

Because the very concept of stealing intellectual property was not a particularly profound issue prior. But I guess that goes on neoliberalists shoulders as well, fuck the people who wants to make a living of entertainment, copy it as many times as you like...

They strengthen international sanctions such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and investor-state dispute settlement schemes to circumvent and neutralize national social legislation they dislike.

This one I agree with, very much so.

They bail out and subsidize private banking systems at the cost of many multiples of existing national income. And they define corporations as legal persons in order to facilitate the buying of elections.

Not only have we bailed out banks prior to neoliberalism, there are almost no economic theory that advices to do otherwise, because there is almost no price that exceeds an economic collapse.

So two things, one this is very, very American centric, which makes the notion of neoliberalism to be an all purveying economic philosophy kind of laughable. If it doesn't hold true to principles across borders, then it is not a particularly well established political philosophy to which one can criticize as all encompassing evil. Secondly, it is a mess of mish mash of all sorts of political acts, that completely glosses over all context of the matter, striving hard to line them all up to be neoliberalism; I think particularly the incarceration one speaks volumes to that.

The blue-sky writings of neoliberals with regard to the state are, if anything, even more daunting. In the imaginary constitution proposed in Hayek’s Law, Legislation and Liberty, he suggests that politicians be rendered more powerful: in the imagined upper legislative house, Hayek stipulates, only men of substantial property over age forty-five would be eligible to vote or be elected; no political parties would be allowed; and each member would stand for a hefty fifteen-year term. This illustrates the larger neoliberal predisposition to be very leery of democracy, and thus to stymie public participation through the concentration of political power in fewer hands. James Buchanan proposed something very similar. This is just about as far from libertarianism as one could get, short of brute dictatorship.

Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty is not a guidebook, nor a philosophical work meant to propose. It is abstract thinking, to address underlying problems with humans fundamentally flawed ways of government. How an economist gets this wrong, is somewhere between being shit at their job, or outright lying to make a point, there is no other conclusion to that interpretation of that. James Buchanan precedes neoliberalism, and equally calling what he strived for neoliberalism is absurd; the dude refused to bail out banks, but oh yeah, totally neoliberalist.

So here is the answer to my first question: people think the label “neoliberalism” is an awful neologism because the neoliberals have been so good at covering their tracks, obscuring what they stand for, and denying the level of coherence which they have achieved in their long march to legitimacy. Back when some of these proposals were just a gleam in Hayek’s eye, they did explicitly use the term “neoliberalism” to describe the project that, back then, did not yet exist—even Milton Friedman used it in print. But once their program looked like it would start to jell, and subsequently start reshaping both the state and the market more to their liking, they abruptly abjured any reference to that label, and sometime in the later 1950s, following the lead of Hayek, they began to call themselves “classical liberals.” This attempt at rebranding was an utter travesty because, as they moved from reconceptualization of one area of human experience to another, the resulting doctrines contradicted classical liberalism point by point, and term by term. It might be worthwhile for us who come after to insist upon the relevance of things that put the neo- in neoliberalism.

I mean... Okay? Uhm, there is a lot of interpretation of motive, action and motivation, that stems from... this person own made up logic. Sorry, that's about all I can really say to that. Sounds a lot like exposing postmodernist marxism as well; this all encompassing machine, which a person has derived the entire motive, action and motivation, through sheer logic. Fuck the notion of presenting any, and I mean literally any evidence that the conclusion is true.

[Felya]

That actually isn't it at all. It is its own consistent ideology. And given its design and nature, the distinction between it and Fascism is basically negligable.

This is why Endus called it billshit... @Mihalik is trying to define it, as it’s being presented. While Ednus, is responding to the classic liberal version. There is a version that is defined by compromises with GOP on the basis of capitalism vs socialism, which can be discussed on merit. Then there is your version, which defines things like affirmative action, as blitzkrieg. Where the great replacement, is no different than Hitler’s genocide. With one big problem... if that were the case... if great replacement was real... it makes the Jews and communist under fascism, also fascist... because the rational is identical. How is the classic liberal belief in the great replacement, any different than the Jewish question? The skin color?

Neoliberalism is a conservative attempt to have a neoCons version of liberals, by blaming them for compromising. Something that is a legitimate complaint, if you look at what @Mihalik, not an excuse to equate the far right with democrats.

Hey look... both of them are right... yet... you are still wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

That's neo-liberalism. Capitalism with the AESTHETICS of progressivism.

Right wingers/fascists just tend to get mad at Capitalism whenever they feel that it doesn't serve their particular set of priorities and turn it into some Elders of Zion conspiratard bullshit.

They get upset at liberalism, when they can blame their actions on them... simple example... How the hell were democrats unAmerican during Iraq war, for mocking and defying Bush, to the point republicans invented freedom fries... Yet, Biden is a warmonger?

They think that news and history functions on repetitiveness. Something I fault neoliberals for... If everyone wasn’t a special snowflake, they wouldn’t have authority over everything. Special snowflakes don’t wear masks... they are being held down by the deep state... they will be fired for their brilliant opinion... have it on repeat 24/7 by specially curated social media. Trump is the only one that understands and cares for me...

[Howel]

I have a feeling you simply aren't going to read the article.

So, I'll quote your nomenclature confusion by again citing the article:

And I have feeling you won't read the works of these people mentioned in the article to gain the full comprehension, and instead will just blindly trust the article because it is your favourite topic of neoliberalism=bad.

Yeah and I find that part to a major copout. Postmodernist no truth exists, political ideology meanings are beyond pinpointable, except we can pinpoint neoliberalism to an absolute specific point.
Also if everyone is a neoliberalist, I think it is time to concede, seeing as it is the one item in human history we apparently all could acknowledge as righteous.

[Felya]

And I have feeling you won't read the works of these people mentioned in the article to gain the full comprehension, and instead will just blindly trust the article because it is your favourite topic of neoliberalism=bad.

Yeah and I find that part to a major copout. Postmodernist no truth exists, political ideology meanings are beyond pinpointable, except we can pinpoint neoliberalism to an absolute specific point.

Just to reaffirm what you are saying... Look at the thread title... Now use the search function on this forum for “neoliberal”... is 1000 results the limits for mmo champion?

- - - Updated - - -

Rudy Guilliani said the equivalent of this, during his leaky speech. He did it while claiming liberals attacked the election... to catch him self and claim Trump is the real liberal, like they had in the 1930s:

While we can fairly well identify the roster of who should be acknowledged as a part of the movement, at least from its beginnings in the 1930s until the recent past, we are confronted with the fact that, in public, they themselves roundly deny the existence of any such well-defined thought collective, and stridently resist the label of neoliberalism.

[Howel]

Just to reaffirm what you are saying... Look at the thread title... Now use the search function on this forum for “neoliberal”... is 1000 results the limits for mmo champion?

Oh God, it is the, "The media isn't talking about it" - goes on to search Google for it, literally every single outlet has a story on said topic.

[Felya]

I'm surprised anyone read that text-wall, let alone responded.

That’s the irony... it’s not anything new... the apathy created by neoliberals, is what opened the door for Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh God, it is the, "The media isn't talking about it" - goes on to search Google for it, literally every single outlet has a story on said topic.

The thing is, we are a tiny community. For us to be discussing it, doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is... but, it is a pretty absurd article to post here. We have been discussing neoliberalism for years... an argument based on it being a thing no one talks about, is at least 4 years old for this forum. We are passed this point of neoliberal discussion... we are fit to move on to more nuanced points about it. Like... it being used by the altright to stigmatize anyone right of AOC in DNC, as conservative Warhawk Hillary Clinton... while defining AOC and anyone left of her, as a Hugo Chavez style communist.

If that’s the scope of liberalism, what’s centrism? Fascism? Serious question... if corporatism is on the left... what’s the center? A corporation? A dictator?

Edit: Just like the okay symbol... words can have multiple meaning, depending on the author...

[Howel]

The thing is, we are a tiny community. For us to be discussing it, doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is... but, it is a pretty absurd article to post here. We have been discussing neoliberalism for years... an argument based on it being a thing no one talks about, is at least 4 years old for this forum. We are passed this point of neoliberal discussion... we are fit to move on to more nuanced points about it. Like... it being used by the altright to stigmatize anyone right of AOC in DNC, as conservative Warhawk Hillary Clinton... while defining AOC and anyone left of her, as a Hugo Chavez style communist.

If that’s the scope of liberalism, what’s centrism? Fascism? Serious question... if corporatism is on the left... what’s the center? A corporation? A dictator?

Edit: Just like the okay symbol... words can have multiple meaning, depending on the author...

I guess to be somewhat fair, it isn't something that comes up a whole lot in general publication and media; but I'd write that off, as unwillingness, because it is freak mess of a terminology.

[Felya]

I guess to be somewhat fair, it isn't something that comes up a whole lot in general publication and media; but I'd write that off, as unwillingness, because it is freak mess of a terminology.

I don’t think Bush was called a neocon by general publication either. Things like the tea party stuck, due to self promotion. There is no one championing the neocon or neoliberal cause as a fundamental ideology. It’s always wrapped in the greater scope of liberalism and conservatism. It’s pejorative terms... it’s like asking why general publications call Romney a Republican, instead of a a RINO.

[omeomorfismo]

wait, neo liberalism now is left wing?
when i listen that word its always associated with macron or merkel, centre-right people.

btw whats the difference between that "neo liberalism" and the old liberalism? to me they appear the same...

[Endus]

This is why Endus called it billshit... @Mihalik is trying to define it, as it’s being presented. While Ednus, is responding to the classic liberal version.

Even Theo's article mentions that the word is so poorly defined that it essentially means everything and nothing, depending on who you're talking to. Their issue is that they get angry about it and try and declare that their own personal definition is somehow more-valid than the others. It's effectively the same non-argument as people who claim that the Soviet Union wasn't real communism, only a pure hypothetical Marxist utopia is real communism, so everyone calling anything "communist" is almost automatically wrong and bad.

That's obviously ridiculous, right? So is this guy. Same reasoning.

My issue with the label, personally, as I've already described, is that it's become so broad you'll see left-wingers condemning Reaganites for being "neoliberal", at the same time you're seeing right-wingers calling modern Democrats "neoliberal". If it doesn't mean anything, it's not a term that has value.

[Elegiac]

Another thread where the OP copy pastes a silly think piece they didn’t author while adding none of their own input before then attacking people for disagreeing with it and claiming that constitutes “discussion”, huh?

Postmodern Neomarxism as a catch all insult didn’t stick so now the grifters are trying to repurpose neoliberal as the term for, as said, this era’s Great Satan.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The article describes what a Neo-Liberal is. What you've offered is the sales slogan to the masses, not the actual ideology as formulated and acted upon.

Anything can be spun to have sinister intent if someone sounds smart as they're doing it. It's funny because @Theodarzna disdains others for looking to researchers and scientists, when she herself will do it when it suits her narrow and world view mostly filled with lies.

- - - Updated - - -

Even Theo's article mentions that the word is so poorly defined that it essentially means everything and nothing, depending on who you're talking to. Their issue is that they get angry about it and try and declare that their own personal definition is somehow more-valid than the others. It's effectively the same non-argument as people who claim that the Soviet Union wasn't real communism, only a pure hypothetical Marxist utopia is real communism, so everyone calling anything "communist" is almost automatically wrong and bad.

That's obviously ridiculous, right? So is this guy. Same reasoning.

My issue with the label, personally, as I've already described, is that it's become so broad you'll see left-wingers condemning Reaganites for being "neoliberal", at the same time you're seeing right-wingers calling modern Democrats "neoliberal". If it doesn't mean anything, it's not a term that has value.

Thus is the nature of a perjorative slur, everyone tries to use it on everyone else so there's no real way to tell who actually deserves it, because everyone thinks everyone else deserves it.

[Felya]

wait, neo liberalism now is left wing?
when i listen that word its always associated with macron or merkel, centre-right people.

btw whats the difference between that "neo liberalism" and the old liberalism? to me they appear the same...

It’s everything left of Trump... who according to Gulliani, is a classic liberal...

[Howel]

Anything can be spun to have sinister intent if someone sounds smart as they're doing it. It's funny because @Theodarzna disdains others for looking to researchers and scientists, when she herself will do it when it suits her narrow and world view mostly filled with lies.

It is barely even two days since we couldn't trust scientists on Covid, because they could have ulterior motives.

What's that, the author of this article has books on this very topic? Hmm...

[zealo]

Is there really any practical difference between what gets labelled as neoliberalism, and straight up classical liberalism?

[Draco-Onis]

I'm surprised anyone read that text-wall, let alone responded.

I will save you some reading for all of Theo's threads aside from a very few "LEFT WING BAD" or "BAD THING IS ONLY LEFT WING". Now that Trump has lost it's the back to the tried and true no need to talk about supporting Trump for four years it's LEFT WING / LIBURALS BAD.

[Felya]

Is there really any practical difference between what gets labelled as neoliberalism, and straight up classical liberalism?

Classic liberals are fascist. It’s a term made up by the altright, to make them seem centrist. As an example, Gulliani made a reference to 1930s liberals being like Trump, just a couple of days ago.

Neoliberalism is a reaction to the nature of liberals being... uhm... very altruistic... when it comes to compromising liberal values, yet getting nothing from conservatives. It has been used by the altright, to blame democrats for Iraq war, patriot act, NAFTA and all the other shit that was pushed by GOP, but passed with DNC signatures.

Both terms are used to muddy the water...

- - - Updated - - -

I will save you some reading for all of Theo's threads aside from a very few "LEFT WING BAD" or "BAD THING IS ONLY LEFT WING". Now that Trump has lost it's the back to the tried and true no need to talk about supporting Trump for four years it's LEFT WING / LIBURALS BAD.

Remember when Clinton lost, it mean liberals need to change, with Trump win showing people are sick of democrats. Yet, with Trump losing, the narrative is... ‘he can’t hurt you anymore’... The Clintons and Obamas, now those guys can...

Just imagine the near future of democrats being blamed for failing to get passed the SCOTUS. So much more shit to blame on liberals as a result... The rhetoric of democrats being neoliberals, is only going to get stronger, as we lose social safety nets and civil rights through the SCOTUS.

You think ‘democrats had 2 years of total control of government and all we got was ACA’ is annoying? Try that for the foreseeable future... imagine a future where every liberal cause failing at SCOTUS, is argued as a success and fault of neoliberals.

[JohnBrown1917]

Another thread where the OP copy pastes a silly think piece they didn’t author while adding none of their own input before then attacking people for disagreeing with it and claiming that constitutes “discussion”, huh?

Postmodern Neomarxism as a catch all insult didn’t stick so now the grifters are trying to repurpose neoliberal as the term for, as said, this era’s Great Satan.

It did not stick so much that even a lot of neoliberals call themslves neoliberals. Why do you care what people use to insult capitalists/right-wingers? Even when they call themselves neoliberals, those of us on the left did not come up with the term.

- - - Updated - - -

I will save you some reading for all of Theo's threads aside from a very few "LEFT WING BAD" or "BAD THING IS ONLY LEFT WING". Now that Trump has lost it's the back to the tried and true no need to talk about supporting Trump for four years it's LEFT WING / LIBURALS BAD.

Neoliberalism is a right-wing idealogy tho

- - - Updated - - -

Is there really any practical difference between what gets labelled as neoliberalism, and straight up classical liberalism?

Pretty much the same thing in a new coat of paint.