'Neoliberalism'

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

'Neoliberalism'

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Excellent article on the rise of so-called 'neoliberalism' (more like 'neofascism). I knew the right-wing ideology that has been creeping in for decades now had to have come from somewhere, but I didn't know it had a name.

'Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers....'

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... ge-monbiot
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.



Care to actually read the article & develop your own opinion upon it?


Perhaps create an actual philosophical thread based upon the interpretation of this article?



FYI - Active members here traditionally DO NOT read articles that are linked.









.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Care to actually read the article & develop your own opinion upon it?


Perhaps create an actual philosophical thread based upon the interpretation of this article?



FYI - Active members here traditionally DO NOT read articles that are linked.









.
So says the person who regularly post 'gifs' as a thread starter. I did read it. Did you? I don't think you can speak for others. How would you know what others do or don't read on here? Actually I thought about you when I read it. The article says it all really. I can't improve on the truth. Even if one person bothers to read it that will be something.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Care to actually read the article & develop your own opinion upon it?


Perhaps create an actual philosophical thread based upon the interpretation of this article?



FYI - Active members here traditionally DO NOT read articles that are linked.









.
She's doing way better than you. And there's nothing in the rules that specifically forbid it.

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Care to actually read the article & develop your own opinion upon it?


Perhaps create an actual philosophical thread based upon the interpretation of this article?



FYI - Active members here traditionally DO NOT read articles that are linked.









.
She's doing way better than you. And there's nothing in the rules that specifically forbid it.

PhilX
Thanks PE. :)
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Care to actually read the article & develop your own opinion upon it?


Perhaps create an actual philosophical thread based upon the interpretation of this article?



FYI - Active members here traditionally DO NOT read articles that are linked.









.
She's doing way better than you. And there's nothing in the rules that specifically forbid it.

PhilX
Thanks PE. :)
You're welcome. I'm going to call BW NMod which stands for new moderator.

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
She's doing way better than you. And there's nothing in the rules that specifically forbid it.

PhilX
Thanks PE. :)
You're welcome. I'm going to call BW NMod which stands for new moderator.

PhilX
:lol: He hardly has room to talk. His threads generally consist of either a dot followed by a sentence in huge lettering, or a gif of wobbling bums or huge breasts.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thanks PE. :)
You're welcome. I'm going to call BW NMod which stands for new moderator.

PhilX
:lol: He hardly has room to talk. His threads generally consist of either a dot followed by a sentence in huge lettering, or a gif of wobbling bums or huge breasts.
He's good for entertainment. I must admit that.

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
You're welcome. I'm going to call BW NMod which stands for new moderator.

PhilX
:lol: He hardly has room to talk. His threads generally consist of either a dot followed by a sentence in huge lettering, or a gif of wobbling bums or huge breasts.
He's good for entertainment. I must admit that.

PhilX
I can't say the same. I'm not really into bums and breasts.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: :lol: He hardly has room to talk. His threads generally consist of either a dot followed by a sentence in huge lettering, or a gif of wobbling bums or huge breasts.
He's good for entertainment. I must admit that.

PhilX
I can't say the same. I'm not really into bums and breasts.
I would think most women aren't. Does Bill ever make any good points?

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

No.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by bobevenson »

Come to think of it, I believe I'm the only person in this forum who ever makes a point on anything while the rest of you just throw sticks and stones to break my bones and names you think will harm me, but all to no avail.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

bobevenson wrote:Come to think of it, I believe I'm the only person in this forum who ever makes a point on anything while the rest of you just throw sticks and stones to break my bones and names you think will harm me, but all to no avail.
Just goes to show how deluded people on here can be. I will say one thing about you bob, you have a VERY thick skin.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:Come to think of it, I believe I'm the only person in this forum who ever makes a point on anything while the rest of you just throw sticks and stones to break my bones and names you think will harm me, but all to no avail.
I will admit your head comes to a point. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

PhilX
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: 'Neoliberalism'

Post by Greta »

Veg, the trickle-down effect was always a con. If money consistently gushes upwards, but only trickles down, there can be only one result. It is so obvious that the fact that people never complained about it for decades suggests that they deserve to be controlled and repressed.

I didn't always think this way; I was concerned at the inequity for most of my life. Yet, for decades I've seen average people passionately arguing against their own interests because Murdoch's staff and allies told them so, and often they argued in an aggressive and toxic manner. That looks to me like natural selection. Dumb animals have always been exploited by more intelligent ones and they will either have their resources taken from them or become resources themselves. The dynamic between rich and poor looks very much like the dynamic between humans and other species.

At present the eighty wealthiest people own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion people. While this stat is not well-known to the general public, most are aware of extraordinary inequality in their own countries, yet they continue to return "conservative" governments to power whole main aim is to push that inequality further.

You could say that those who are not wealthy have largely been outFOXed by the rich for a long time. In fact, long enough for it to be too late to do much about it. The major parties - the only ones with the experience to govern increasingly complex economies and societies (albeit poorly) - are both in the pockets of multinationals. One party is more extreme in its favouring of the wealthy over the poor than the other, but neither are prepared to push for more significantly balanced wealth distribution. To do so would be political suicide - even though such a move would benefit most voters.
Post Reply