Neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.21777913]

Acknowledging how almost every vulgar leftist under the sun has sadly abused the living crap out of this term, are there any good books in either English or my native German about it, especially it's historical implementation?

[Anonymous No.21778023]

Identifying it for what it is isn't abusing it.

[Anonymous No.21778936]

bump

[Anonymous No.21779029]

I think neoliberalism is just what liberalism evolved into after the progressive era. It’s really just progressivism, going back to TR/Taft/Wilson.

[Anonymous No.21779047]

>>21779029
"liberal" in a proper political sense doesn't mean what "liberal" does on twitter and has nothing to do with progressivism

[Anonymous No.21779054]

>>21779047
It quite obviously is nearly synonymous with progressivism. A liberal places emphasis on rights. A progressive places on positive rights in particular. Both tend to confuse socioeconomic class concerns for political concerns.

[Anonymous No.21779065]

>>21779029
Progressivism can be seen as a sort of bribe to the lower classes. Social security in the US, etc., but they’re trying to tear it down and pass it off to private banks nowadays. “Socialism for the rich” can’t be seen as even the half measure of progressive or socialism of any kind.
Yeah, evolved into this new unstable stage. “Late stage” someone called it. Looks very fascist

[Anonymous No.21779077]

>>21777913
Ordoliberalism is the autistic Kraut variant.

>>21779029
Progressivism was a late 19th/early 20th century middle class reformist movement with elitist tendencies... neoliberalism was the counter response to mid-20th century Keynesianism/social democracy/etc. Basically think about the move towards floating exchange rates in the 1970s and growing reliance on apolitical technocratic monetary policy and such.

>>21779054
Progressives weren't concerned about rights but duties e.g. the retarded have a duty to not reproduce and eugenic laws should exist, corporations should take care of workers with pensions, etc. Guys like Woodrow Wilson didn't care about civil liberties and they expanded segregation to the federal government.

[Anonymous No.21779082]

>>21779054
>socioeconomic aren’t political
Oh the corruption of language

[Anonymous No.21779092]

>>21779065
>Progressivism can be seen as a sort of bribe to the lower classes
No, it was paternalistic. The lower class wouldn't have a say in their governance ideally since they're morons and all decisions should be left with experts.

>Social security in the US, etc., but they’re trying to tear it down and pass it off to private banks nowadays
Social security in America came out of the 1930s, not the progressive era... progressives believed more in corporations than the federal government doing most things... just with the force of public laws mobilizing them.

>“Socialism for the rich” can’t be seen as even the half measure of progressive or socialism of any kind.
Well than say syndicalism for the gentry

[Anonymous No.21779095]

>>21778023
Leftoids suggesting they have any idea about 'identification' when they cannot even discern the difference between a man and a woman is rich.

[Anonymous No.21779125]

>>21779077
No, it was about rights. The call for people to have a right to healthcare is about a positive right. That taxpayers and healthcare workers have a duty to deliver it is implied but not the point.

[Anonymous No.21779130]

>>21779077
Wilson didn’t care about civil liberties because positive rights are in inherent conflict with negative rights.

>>21779082
The concerns of a particular socioeconomic class are not necessarily political concerns, least of all the concerns of a class of liberal professionals and money-makers and prestige-chasers, the hegemony of which we’ve been living under since John Adams. So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

[Anonymous No.21779163]

>>21779092
The state, the empire, the kingdom, are all paternalistic The lower classes have wanted out of this deal and had at the time been developing socialism, hence the need for a bribe (which didn't come till their economic crash and world war)
>they're morons
They didn't cause the economic crash and world war. The experts did that.

Social security and right to unionize (under constricting rules) were socialistic ideas, but allowed under the guise of progressivism, a different era and why the word is still used
>progressives believed more in corporations than the federal government
This means there's no difference between the old liberal/classical liberal/rightwing liberal, but this isn't what they became. People use the word now they think "left" not Ron Paul.

>>21779095
the gender issue is an establishment distraction to keep you itchy and ignore the class war.

[Anonymous No.21779176]

>>21779125
Well public healthcare contra eugenics is a good example. They were concern over the spread of diseases and such but not so much as to grant a constitutional right to healthcare. Creating laws to remove the dysfunctional is different than trying to improve them.

>>21779163
>This means there's no difference between the old liberal/classical liberal/rightwing liberal, but this isn't what they became. People use the word now they think "left" not Ron Paul.
That's all political ideology. The development of modern corporate capitalism is something different.

[Anonymous No.21779200]

>>21777913
Why nations fails, Spinoza political writings and Dune
Simple as

[Anonymous No.21779209]

>>21779200
Dune is about worms

[Anonymous No.21779432]

>>21779176
It’s not though. For what reason would you stop the spread of disease if not for the people who have a right to live disease free? I mean, we can argue about whether this was really about rights or duties but the fact is you can’t legislate duties proper, only duties in so far as they fulfill the positive rights of others. Were the positive right not assumed, it wouldn’t even be a topic of debate.

[Anonymous No.21780674]

bumping

[Anonymous No.21780685]

>>21777913
Yeah, sure. Spoiler: it's meaningless drivel.
https://carlsbad1819.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/why-post-liberalism-failed/

[Anonymous No.21780702]

>>21779163
>The lower classes have wanted out of this deal
This is blatantly false. They lower classes only opposed bad governance but not good governence "paternalistic" or not. It's middle-class leftists detached from present material conditions who think otherwise

[Anonymous No.21780710]

I thought it was the right that conflated neo-liberalism with what american's call liberals.
>actual neo-libs

[Anonymous No.21780715]

>>21779077
>Ordoliberalism is the autistic Kraut variant.
And has absolutely nothing to do with whatever nonsense internet leftists call "neoliberalism"

[Anonymous No.21780723]

Neoliberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, and privatization. It seeks to limit the role of government and promote individual responsibility and competition as the basis for economic growth and prosperity.
Here are five books about neo-liberalism, from various perspectives, that are highly regarded by scholars and readers:

"The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein - This book argues that neoliberalism has been implemented through crises and disasters, with powerful elites exploiting these situations to push through their agenda of privatization and deregulation.

"The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition" by William Davies - This book explores the underlying principles of neoliberalism, including the emphasis on competition and individual responsibility, and how they shape our society and politics.

"A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey - This book provides an overview of the history and key features of neoliberalism, including its impact on globalization, inequality, and the role of the state.

"Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution" by Wendy Brown - This book argues that neoliberalism is eroding democracy by reducing citizens to consumers and turning politics into a market-based competition.

"Globalization and its Discontents" by Joseph E. Stiglitz - This book offers a critique of neoliberalism and globalization, arguing that they have led to increased inequality, financial instability, and social unrest.

These books provide a range of perspectives on neoliberalism, its origins, and its impact on society and politics. They are highly regarded by scholars and readers alike, and can help deepen your understanding of this important and controversial economic and political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21780753]

>>21780723
>"A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey
In this book, David Harvey states that George Soros, Jeffrey Sachs, and Paul Krugman are critics of Neoliberalism and that “better regulatory structures of global governance” are its antithesis. In other words: neoliberalism does not exist and only serves as a left-wing alibi to shift their culpability for the rise of new social movements to "right-wing" Chicago boys.

[Anonymous No.21780755]

What do leftists call "neoliberalism"?

[Anonymous No.21780764]

>>21780753
just learn to google and choose something that suits your agenda you dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.21780778]

>>21780755
Something that does not exist
>>21780764
David Harvey does it for me

[Anonymous No.21780795]

Not sure how anyone can take neo-liberals and their ideology seriously after 2008.
Its the quintessential Boomer ideology

[Anonymous No.21780810]

>>21779163
>Le gender issue is a distraction to make you ignore the class war
>That's why we MUST instate MANDATORY STATE-FUNDED GENDER TRANSITIONS NOW! For the Proletariat! Crush the transphobes!

>Le race politics is a distraction to make you ignore the class war
>That's why we MUST SUPPORT BLM, DEFUND THE POLICE, ESTABLISH RACIAL QUOTAS, AND IMPORT AS MANY FOREIGN PEOPLES AS POSSIBLE! The Proletariat will rise! Slay the racist!

>Le feminism is a distraction to make you ignore the class war
>That's why WE NEED LE FEMINISM!! Establish quotas! Smash the glass ceiling! Death to the patriarchy!

I hate leftists so much it's unreal.

[Anonymous No.21780813]

>>21780810
touch grass

[Anonymous No.21780814]

>>21780810

[Anonymous No.21780824]

>>21780813
Marxleftists are deranged animals that actively fight the working class and proletariat in favor of bourgeois academics. They say shit like "gender ideology is a distraction" while fully buying into it, and at every front, instead of ignoring the conflict or throwing punches indiscriminately at anyone that buys into gender ideology, they exclusively attack whatever they perceive to be "the right wing view" and thereby take part in the "distraction" as much as anyone.

[Anonymous No.21780898]

>>21780810
>>21780824
It is a fact that these groups are brutalized on account of their innate characteristics and that those take precedence over their class position. Intersectionality is a project to overcome those distinctions and create a cohesive working class movement, while passively perpetuating gender, racial or sexual oppression, or worse yet advocating for it only serves to fragment the working class.

[Anonymous No.21780925]

>>21780814

[Anonymous No.21780935]

>>21780898
Their cope is that it is supposed to create a "cohesive working class." They don't do anything of the sort, they merely play the identity games that the system manufactures.

[Anonymous No.21780945]

>>21780723
>"Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution" by Wendy Brown - This book argues that neoliberalism is eroding democracy by reducing citizens to consumers and turning politics into a market-based competition.

I'm seconding ChatGPT's recommendation here. This is the deep dive if you finished Shock Doctrine and want more

[Anonymous No.21780954]

>>21780935
It is a fact that these people are getting fucked over on account of their innate characteristics and that a significant area of the public sphere is dedicated to pointless debates regarding whether or not it's right to continue fucking them over.

[Anonymous No.21780978]

>>21780954
Yes, and when we, uh, the capitalists invent a new identity crisis, like trans-walruses and trans-wolves, you can fight for that too and beat the heads in of those filthy right wing prole, uh, fascist whites. It's necessary for a cohesive working class and proletarian revolution, my boy, now get to it.

[Anonymous No.21780988]

Nobody will listen to OP irl so he's ranting on the internet ..... again.

[Anonymous No.21781011]

>>21780978
You do make a good point about not listening to the media. I'm certain it would be easier for many whom are currently bigots to see black people, women, queer and trans folk as actual persons if they did.

[Anonymous No.21781056]

>>21781011
They do. Touch grass, unironically. The "bigots" that are in the real world (not the ones that live rent free in your head) aren't lurching forwards to exterminate everyone unlike themselves, they just think there's nothing wrong with restricting immigration, or that maybe people that want to remove body parts are mentally unsound.

[Anonymous No.21781121]

Isn't neoliberalism just liberalism reframed in reaction to/in the context of modernism and socialism? Seems like they value ideal rights, freedoms and equality (or equity or whatever shit they advocate for nowadays) through the expansion of the Welfare State, but focus on socioeconomic policies instead of broader politics. They focus on specific policies because they reject grand narratives and overarching historical processes. Also seems to be a very American thing since they want every country to resemble America in values.

[Anonymous No.21781189]

>leftists post
>leftists btfo'd
why do they even try

[Anonymous No.21781197]

>>21780702
Not false, though you make your point. The good “citizens” are mere grubs raised on their factory farms, but sometimes a human being matures and realizes what’s going on. This happens more often during crises, but it happens all the time.
For the record I am lower class and self educated.

>>21780810
Meds.
State-capitalism is the driver of the technological conditions. You’ve noticed the anons trying to claim Ted was a tranny?
You can be anti-racist and not woke sjw warrior IDpol idiot.
But that rant there “DEFUND THE POLICE”. This makes it look like you support the police. Ted would box your ears for that. I read the man. He and I both hate that “left”. That statist, capitalist reformer.
Quit shootin at everybody. Learn who your friends are

[Anonymous No.21781202]

>>21781189
Point to it.

[Anonymous No.21781229]

>>21777913
Neoloberalism is just a rebrand of social democracy
WWE levels of theatrical competition

[Anonymous No.21781267]

>>21781197
The driver of technological conditions is not capitalism by any means. Kaczynski is not anti-authority, he is not anarchist, and he is not primitivist. You are literally retarded and an utter poseur.

[Anonymous No.21781275]

>>21781267
What is he for? What is going to save the trees?

[Anonymous No.21781325]

>>21781229
Naw. No, that's not it. It's global capitalism, expansionist commercial empire.

Socialism in the statist sense is about taking care of the social needs. Democracy is a type of governance that no one actually practices on the national scale. "social democracy" is not what this is.

[Anonymous No.21781630]

>>21781325
>It's global capitalism
Non elected bureaucrats regulating everything?

[Anonymous No.21781736]

>>21781630
>Non elected
Elected or not, they're in the pockets of the wealthy.

[Anonymous No.21781768]

>>21777913
Amazing how in a few more years no one will remember or care about who Tony Blair or Gordon Brown were, in fact it’s probably already happened. A Queen who did nothing but live a long time with little to no opinions of her own will be remembered more, I suppose this is the just desserts of New Labour

[Anonymous No.21781801]

>>21781768
Everyone remembers that "new Labour" are Blairites. He's still around hawking digital IDs now. You can't escape neoliberalism (currently) but his cursed name will fade someday

[Anonymous No.21781835]

>>21781275
You got filtered hard. He wants de-industrialization (through violent means NOT POLITICAL AND NOT LEGISLATIVE), nothing more or less, and whether monarchic, liberal capitalist, or communist societies pilfer and plunder whatever remains is unimportant.

[Anonymous No.21781842]

>>21781197
>>21781275
Funnily enough, he has directly criticized YOUR kind of leftism, the type you try to offhandedly distance yourself from, and the idea of unifying a proletariat. He believes even leftist aims like equality are only sustainable with the techno-industrial system. You brainlets are so tiring.

[Anonymous No.21781995]

>>21781835
>and whether monarchic, liberal capitalist, or communist societies pilfer and plunder whatever remains is unimportant.
YEAH IT IS. Or any efforts to fight it won't mean shit. Read any Graeber? James C. Scott?

>>21781842
>YOUR kind of leftism, the type you try to offhandedly distance yourself from
That would be two different and distinct camps. I more than distance myself from them, I am in that different camp
The kind of equality that "tribal" people practice is obviously achievable, and highly desirable of you want to fight this effectively. Again, check out James C. Scott's work. Clastres' Society Against the State studied this before Graeber even. Kazcynski is a smart guy, but he didn't know everything. Quit pretending YOU know even half as much as he does

[Anonymous No.21782053]

>>21780898
>Intersectionality is a project to overcome those distinctions and create a cohesive working class movement
>a cohesive working class movement
lol
lmao

[Anonymous No.21782060]

>>21782053
Your drop isn't related, btw.

[Anonymous No.21782075]

>>21781995
>YEAH IT IS. Or any efforts to fight it won't mean shit. Read any Graeber? James C. Scott?
Late stage brain death
>That would be two different and distinct camps. I more than distance myself from them, I am in that different camp
>The kind of equality that "tribal" people practice is obviously achievable, and highly desirable of you want to fight this effectively.
You are irreparable. I don't even know where to start with you, but Breadtube "philosophy" videos are not a substitute for reading. Just touch grass and interact with the world in some way and then come back to post.

[Anonymous No.21782086]

Am I above the culture war or is the side I support getting attacked?

[Anonymous No.21782118]

>>21782075
>I don't even know where to start with you
Because you’re a belligerent moron. Go to bed now. School night.

[Anonymous No.21782134]

>>21780755
The term has been used off and on, there are apparently references for it back in the 1920s, but I think in recent decades it was used more as a pejorative term (typically from the left) aimed at the ideas that shaped the shift toward laissez-faire economics after the 1970s -- neo-liberalism. Think of Milton Friedman. It wasn't until the last few years that I started to see people self-describe as neoliberals and indicating a centrist position in American politics.

>>21780795
Well this is funny, neolibs are already trying to rebrand themselves as "ordoliberals," they already know it's kinda over, the economic arguments about the "free market" don't work as much as they used to. It's sorta Klaus Schwab-pilled since I would describe him as German-style ordoliberal more than a neoliberal.

>>21781121
Neoliberalism in the context I'm describing anyways was pretty hostile to the welfare state, or the state playing much of a role at all. American politics is weird though since the society was based on liberalism from the outset, which is economically Darwinist in its way (the strong are the economically successful) with a Calvinist ethic that work is morally ennobling, which has its hypocrisies but the U.S. did turn into a powerhouse with this. This did leave room for the state to play a role, though, like funding public education since that is useful for creating productive people, or passing laws outlawing child labor during the Progressive era. Basically to use the state to help grow the economy by building infrastructure (the Whigs were into this) and ameliorate the negatives of the market (the Progressives).

And this was represented in both parties until the Great Depression, when they began to diverge. The Republicans took the Darwinist elements and combined them with the Religious Right; i.e. Evangelical Christians (I'd argue their culture is authoritarian and traditionally Southern but at least traditionally left room for the state as well, they were part of the New Deal coalition of the 1930s). The Democrats took the ameliorative side that left room for the state, but didn't become socialistic, even though the Republicans say that. In a historical irony too, this was sold to the Religious Right as a means to strengthen churches and the family by cutting people off government assistance. The Democrats too spun off a lot of the state's role in ameliorating poverty to NGOs. This is Bill Clinton-style welfare reform and Tony Blair too in the U.K.

As a side note: the neoliberal shift was very Western, as in the Western states. Barry Goldwater (Arizona), Ronald Reagan (California).

https://youtu.be/FPJapuW1img

Anyways, so the left / socialist criticism of neoliberalism is that it results in extreme inequality among other problems and that has corrosive effects on society, and that the basic goal of neoliberalism was to leave economic policy in the hands of central banks which serve the interests of financial institutions.

[Anonymous No.21782177]

>>21781121
>Seems like they value ideal rights, freedoms and equality (or equity or whatever shit they advocate for nowadays)
Okay so this is what I'm talking about when I say they're starting to refer to themselves as ordoliberals now because this "equity" thing is what "stakeholder capitalism" is about. This is what Klaus Schwab at the WEF is into, the idea is that to ameliorate the negative effects of the market, business has to factor in other quantities than shareholder value. This is also called ESG (environmental, social, and governance). So a typical thing would be companies trying to figure out how to reduce their carbon emissions or basically try to create a framework by working with labor unions to make the workers happy and government to shape regulation (in a way that benefits them ha ha) to balance things. Ordoliberalism in Germany is similar I think.

It's definitely pro-market. China is state capitalism where the state actually takes over companies or utilities. They call that socialism over there but Lenin thought state capitalism would be a step in the right direction.

You see among the Republicans a lot of opposition to this equity/ESG stuff, even calling it "woke capitalism," because there's elements of companies creating "diversity" programs. This is that ameliorative stuff. But I think the Republicans are basically expressing the neoliberal argument (shareholder value is the only thing that matters) going full reactionary at this point as it collapses and is being replaced by something else, but it's also weird because sometimes you'll see the right use neoliberalism as a pejorative phrase to describe the ESG stuff, but more often they'll just say it's communism or wokeism something.

I'd add that the argument against this from China is that you can't trust CEOs:

https://youtu.be/9DOauvmg4Kg?t=1342

[Anonymous No.21782549]

>>21780988
But I didn't even post any replies except the two bumps in hope the discussion might stabilize again ...

[Anonymous No.21782601]

>>21777913
errr, yes, this post is a good place to start: >>21780723 as now you mention it, OP, I don't know any arguments about it either.

We'd start by noticing that 'Liberalism' today is a name-on thing, because the governments established a few centuries ago have the word and concepts enshrined in them and the people who seek office in those governments with malitent cannot say "no i'm against liberal policy," so that's how the word and the concept ended up so polluted.

We'd also notice that the "anarchy of capitalism" is basically all 'Liberalism' has been for the last half century (and far worse beforehand; e.g. before Roosevelt in America), that is slow chaos, decline of services, selling of public property to foreign and private bidders, undermining of citizenship to lower the wage and a constant consequential economic collapse, and also the far less mentioned terrible reality of the weakening of the currency and overall economic value by quadruple digits in the percent - called inflation but properly called debasement - and also the outsourcing of valuable economic production across the world to import goods at greater expense whilst removing any work that would enable a person to purchase those goods.


Essentially there's been no forward movement 'since' the years of Roosevelt, and so HG Wells interview with Stalin on "(capitalism as) Anarchy in Production" remains still the ..uhh.. "bleeding edge" of the topic.

Also notice that, as far as I'm aware, nobody has really mentioned the disaster of currency debasement that's easily demonstrated in even the last fifty years:
e.g. a £30,000 house now costs £3,500,000, bread from £0.02 to £2.50, etc. at no improvement to the house or the bread, only demonstrating a colossally weakened currency as a result of poor economic production ... that is: a numerical impression of gains in profit, but currency weakening rapidly so as to produce no gains whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.21783055]

>>21780755
Real leftists that aren't supporting the neoliberals on twitter are probably like me and calling them out for shifting ever more into fascism. This is the stage they're going to have to take now that it's all sliding away

[Anonymous No.21783060]

>>21781267
>Me and the police are gonna stop technology