Thoughts? — Agustino

How has that not been the case since Thatcher and Reagan. Can you think of any leader of either country winding back the neoliberal project in any meaningful fashion since then?

The wheel seems ready to turn though. Growth is stagnant. Financialisation - speculative money - has been allowed to corrupt all markets. The environmental costs of the basic industrial-era economy are coming home to roost.

Trump feels like society nervously making the first preparations to turn fascist and statist when the current economic illusion actually collapses. The winners and losers are being lined up in readiness, the social lines drawn, for when it all turns inward and nasty.

So yes. Neoliberalism remains in great health as an ideology. But the degree to which the actual global economy is then just a speculative illusion is the big question.

As well as the question of how best politically to manage the puncturing of the illusion. What system of control should best kick in there?

And the UK Conservatives pretty much remain as neoliberal as ever, except in a more underhanded fashion. — Agustino

What about the proposed energy cap which they stole from Miliband's Labour?

Thoughts? — Agustino

Here in the UK, I think that with regards to the left, largely represented by the Labour Party, the opposite is true. The move towards neoliberalism peaked with Blair, then declined, and Corbyn's Labour is pretty far from neoliberalism, at least economically, which is a big defining feature of neoliberalism. Corbyn wants to raise corporation tax and renationalise key industries.

The SNP has also swung to the left, and away from neoliberalism, since the late seventies.

The idea that left an right share essentially the same ideology is well established. Clearly there are some differences, but nothing radically different.

"...what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, and globalization" seem like the core issues. "...political correctness, identity politics, and sexual promiscuity are epiphenomenal and peripheral--which does not mean they are without significance. Political correctness and identity politics are just new tools to shut down the speech of people somebody doesn't like. Either they are fascists, racists, communists, neocolonialists, capitalists, gay, straight, black, rich, poor, white and male (the worst), or something else. The logical conclusion of identity politics is the group of 1, and maybe even less.

Sexual promiscuity is a personal choice exercised across the political spectrum. I don't think it is part of any particular ideology. Most people actually aren't all that promiscuous.

Consumerism presents a special problem. Were a few hundred million people to commence living in an economically and environmentally sustainable way, the world economy would probably dive into a recession. Consumerism drives the growth of the world economy. I don't know what the solution to this problem is.

I think "neoliberalism" is a term almost devoid of meaning, as I've never seen anyone positively identify as a neoliberal, and it seems to be used most often as a pejorative term for capitalism or free markets by the left.

Can you think of any leader of either country winding back the neoliberal project in any meaningful fashion since then? — apokrisis

Answer: no.

Trump feels like society nervously making the first preparations to turn fascist and statist when the current economic illusion actually collapses. The winners and losers are being lined up in readiness, the social lines drawn, for when it all turns inward and nasty. — apokrisis

Yes, but I don't think the neoliberal elites will allow that to happen that easily. Fascism and statism, among other things, means their destruction.

I think "neoliberalism" is a term almost devoid of meaning, as I've never seen anyone positively identify as a neoliberal, and it seems to be used most often as a pejorative term for capitalism or free markets by the left. — Thorongil

Neoliberal - I identify those people very clearly. They love the fall of the Berlin wall, the opening of the markets, pro-globalisation, hate Trump, are entirely for religious unitarianism (Allah = Christian God, etc.), some of them made quite a bit of money, have loose moral values, etc. etc.

Clear examples: unenlightened, Banno, Hanover (quite possibly though I'm not so sure about him). And again, not on all issues, but they broadly have a view that I identify with this neoliberal class of people. I still remember the story of Banno going to women's rally against Trump's election after Trump got elected, incapable to understand how such a thing happened >:O .

As a definition, that is so vague as to be meaningless. Also, I don't care whether you can identify someone else as a neoliberal. There's plenty of that going on all the time. I care about whether anyone has him or herself identified as a neoliberal. If no one has or does, then it's a term of abuse, pure and simple.

There's plenty of that going on all the time. I care that about whether anyone has himself identified as a neoliberal. If no one does, then it's a term of abuse, pure and simple. — Thorongil

Nope, that doesn't follow. Just because they're not aware of a series of presuppositions, ways of thinking, and ways of living that they share does not mean that they don't have this in common. In fact, quite the contrary - given that neoliberalism has infiltrated both the right and the left, it will be what forms the common framework of shared assumptions under which both parties operate. The Republicans hate Trump, and the Democrats also hate Trump. I'm talking about the parties now. That's why McCain so easily shakes hands with Joe Biden, or Bob Corker wants Trump out as much as Sanders.

The word is used almost exclusively by left wing journalists and Marxist economists. As such, it carries with it the danger of being a strawman. In fact, I think it is just this. Your comments don't dissuade me from this impression.

It seems to me that today both the right-wing and the left-wing pretty much peddle a neoliberal set of values, including political correctness, identity politics, what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, globalisation, sexual promiscuity, etc. — Agustino

I agree with thorongil, I think you would take all the political and moral attitudes which you dislike and class them under the heading of neo-liberalism.

"...what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, and globalization" seem like the core issues. "...political correctness, identity politics, and sexual promiscuity are epiphenomenal and peripheral — Bitter Crank

Yes and no with regards to PC, IP and SP. They are more peripheral in the sense that they are not the causes of the others. But they are intimately related with what you call the core issues. For example, PC is something that is used to promote globalisation and what it entails - cultural diversity, religious tolerance, pro-immigration, pro-global trade, anti-protectionism. And IP is much the same. With regards to sexual mores, it's also not difficult to see how sexual promiscuity becomes the sine qua non condition of flourishing for consumerism. So it's not a mystery at all that we noticed this decrease in the values of sexual mores (despite the increase in relationship instability) that is correlated with consumerism, the two go hand in hand. Consumerism inherently destroys moral structures and breeds instability.

Most people actually aren't all that promiscuous. — Bitter Crank

I'm not talking about that, just the cultural attitude vis-a-vis promiscuity.

Consumerism presents a special problem. Were a few hundred million people to commence living in an economically and environmentally sustainable way, the world economy would probably dive into a recession. Consumerism drives the growth of the world economy. I don't know what the solution to this problem is. — Bitter Crank

Yes, exactly.

The word is used almost exclusively by left wing journalists and Marxist economists. As such, it carries with it the danger of being a strawman. In fact, I think it is just this. Your comments don't dissuade me from this impression. — Thorongil

So the word is a strawman because some people use it in a way that you don't like? That's why it carries a danger of being a strawman? :s

And by the way, you have an impression that people on the left use neoliberal as some insult for those on the right, but most neoliberals I know are leftists, not rightists. The right neoliberals are less common today than in the past, but the left ones are a lot more common.

I don't agree with Agustino's conception of neoliberalism. Does anyone else? I think that it would be more productive to get a decent source for a definition before going any further.

Monbiot did a nice article on the theory vs the practice.

This thread is an exercise in stereotyping. A relative of mine is convinced that Cultural Marxism is to blame, but it’s a bit too much like a conspiracy theory for my liking. Me, I’m ‘right’ on some issues, and ‘left’ on others.

Bought his book, ‘What Went Wrong’, or something like that. Now one of the pile of partially-read books on nightstand, due to realising, after I bought it, that it consisted entirely of re-printed Guardian OP’s, although I’m basically in agreement with it.

Sometimes I wonder why anti-corporatism and green-left activism can’t seem to produce someone better than Naomi Klein.

So - decentralisation, global localism, efficient downsizing, distributed networks of production and distribution. To be ‘too big to fail’ should mean ‘to big to exist’. Abolish corporatism but encourage innovation and private enterprise via networked production and distribution. Energy and food self-sufficiency as much as possible, rather than trying to milk mass markets for economies of scale enabling you to crush the competition. That was the vision of Stewart Brand and the Whole Earth Catalogue.

I don't agree with Agustino's conception of neoliberalism. — Sapientia

Why not?

So - decentralisation, global localism, efficient downsizing, distributed networks of production and distribution. — Wayfarer

Funnily enough, you too are a neoliberal. In fact, it is exactly your type that I define as neoliberal, including your approach to religion, capitalism, etc.

The only part where that characterisation fails to a certain extent is your opposition to corporatism, although you don't have a worked out vision of how to "abolish" it. Not like the owners of those corporations are going to willingly surrender their power. And you will certainly not abolish it by electing "the most qualified" person to be President, Crooked Hillary.

As well as the question of how best politically to manage the puncturing of the illusion. What system of control should best kick in there? — apokrisis

The only real option is the system of control run by the military. I mean what other alternative is there? There have only ever been two sources of power in this world, capital and military. So if capital implodes on itself, it is only sensible that the military will be the one to step in and prevent everything from falling apart - they will also have the justification to step in, since well, otherwise everything falls apart.

Furthermore, as you yourself have said, speculative capital has already corrupted all other industries. There really is nothing left but capital and the military. If capital fails, then it fails as a mechanism of imposing power - it no longer works. So we will revert to the only mechanism of imposing power that can never fail, which is military force.

Military force isn't even now always ruled by capital in all places.

And you will certainly not abolish it by electing "the most qualified" person to be President, Crooked Hillary. — Agustino

You must post some pictures from your planet one day. It must be very different to ours.

you must post some pictures from your planet one day. It must be very different to ours. — Wayfarer

Hillary Clinton was probably the single most neo-liberal candidate from the whole election, apart from possibly Jeb Bush.

Stone her! Stone her!

Stone her! Stone her! — Wayfarer

No, it's not about that, but the thing is that you're not the first person in your age group 50+ who I've met who thinks exactly the same way. You all miss the golden days of the fall of the Berlin wall, how we are all becoming one humanity, New Ageism, etc. etc. There is a reason why you cannot stand Donald Trump, and that is precisely because in some regards he is dynamite in the neoliberal system. He is part of what both Democrats and Republicans agree that is inadmissible. All the other disagreements between the two parties are superficial compared to this fundamental agreement.

Why is neoliberalism undesirable?

No, it's not about that, but the thing is that you're not the first person in your age group 50+ who I've met who thinks exactly the same way. You all miss the golden days of the fall of the Berlin wall, how we are all becoming one humanity, New Ageism, etc. etc. There is a reason why you cannot stand Donald Trump, and that is precisely because in some regards he is dynamite in the neoliberal system. He is part of what both Democrats and Republicans agree that is inadmissible. All the other disagreements between the two parties are superficial compared to this fundamental agreement. — Agustino

lol. what on earth was bad about the fall of the Berlin Wall? Wasn't that even the bi-product of america winning the cold war and putting itself first? IF the Berlin Wall had collapsed under Trump's watch, are you telling me he wouldn't be taking all the credit for it?

And in terms of policies that Trump supports or is prepared to sign, and the politicians and media organisations he works with, how exactly is it that he is dynamite in the neoliberal system?

Or do you just mean that he's hastening america's demise and expanding the sphere of influence of China and Russia?

Why is neoliberalism undesirable? — sime

Because it seeks to make everyone into a wage-slave, who consumes more and more products, has no morality but that which increases consumption and is a servant to the market. It was Lenin who said that "all official and liberal science defends wage slavery", and I think he was right. Look at what our Universities are doing. Today, they are literarily in the business of producing wage-slaves.

what on earth was bad about the fall of the Berlin Wall? — sime

I didn't say anything was bad now, I just made a remark about what symbolisms the neoliberals hearken back to. We can discuss if it was good or bad though if you want.

IF the Berlin Wall had collapsed under Trump's watch, are you telling me he wouldn't be taking all the credit for it? — sime

He most likely would have, of course.

And in terms of policies that Trump supports or is prepared to sign, and the politicians and media organisations he works with, how exactly is it that he is dynamite in the neoliberal system? — sime

Even Fox is against Trump, or at least not fully positive. There are a lot of Republican interests that are opposed to Trump. Really, it would be fair to say that both parties are against Trump, just that the Republicans seek to use him support some of their interests.

So the word is a strawman because some people use it in a way that you don't like? That's why it carries a danger of being a strawman? — Agustino

I'm saying that the word is used by people with a left-leaning bias, which inevitably results in caricatures of the other side when engaging in polemics. Wayfarer mentioned the term cultural Marxism. That's a term used almost exclusively by people with a right-leaning bias. Like the word neoliberal, I've never seen anyone positively identify as a cultural Marxist, which is why, as best I recall, I've never used the word.

but most neoliberals I know are leftists, not rightists. The right neoliberals are less common today than in the past, but the left ones are a lot more common. — Agustino

Name names. Who are the left wing neoliberals? Do they identify as such? Who are the right wing neoliberals? Do they identify as such? Finally, who are the right wingers, besides yourself, who criticize neoliberalism?

political correctness, identity politics, what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, globalisation, sexual promiscuity — Agustino

Again, this is way too broad to characterize any single "movement." There are politically correct identitarian leftists who loathe the free market, consumerism, and globalism. There are conservatives who support the free market, consumerism, and globalism while decrying political correctness, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity. And there are doubtless other combinations, given how Western politics engenders political eccentricity and individualism.

Who are left wing neoliberals? — Thorongil

From this forum? I was saying mostly people I know from real life, but from this forum Wayfarer, Banno, VagabondSpectre. Despite the many disagreements these three have, there is major agreement over some essentials.

Do they identify as such? — Thorongil

No they don't.

Who are the right wing neoliberals? — Thorongil

Possibly Hanover, though I'm not sure about him.

Finally, who are the right wingers, besides yourself, who criticize neoliberalism? — Thorongil

On this forum, no one, but there's not many right-wingers here. I'm tempted to say apokrisis, but not sure if it's best to identify him as right-wing. He sounds like neither.

There are conservatives who support the free market, consumerism, and globalism while decrying political correctness, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity. — Thorongil

Yes, they are being contradictory.

There are politically correct identitarian leftists who loathe the free market, consumerism, and globalism. — Thorongil

Hmm okay, that's like liking one effect, but hating the other effects and the cause too.

From this forum? — Agustino

No, that's not helpful at all. I had in mind thinkers, journalists, politicians, philosophers, etc past and present.

Yes, they are being contradictory. — Agustino

How?

Hmm okay, that's like liking one effect, but hating the other effects and the cause too. — Agustino

Think of the SJWs and their ilk. That's who I had in mind.

How? — Thorongil

Because

political correctness, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity — Thorongil

Are supported by:

free market, consumerism, and globalism — Thorongil