General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeoliberalism Is Destroying Our Lives and Many of Us Don’t Even Know What It Is
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/neoliberalism_is_destroying_our_lives--and_many_of_us_20160427
via truthdig:
The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name, writes George Monbiot. Mention it in conversation and youll 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 hasor hada name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
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 Darwins 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.
Continue reading.
KPN
(15,637 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)must read these proposals in the EU- We need these too- Making these changes are MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ELECTION to our future.
Presidents - national legislatures- are increasingly symbolic- ceremonial vestigial figures- once they sign these deals, have no power to change them.
WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT- Please read, also read the linked paper in the line at the bottom of my post-
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+AMD+A8-2016-0009+002-008+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+AMD+A8-2015-0175+028-042+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)exactly.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)it is, that evolved/is reflected in modern conservatism, as opposed to medieval, old-world conservatism. I say that loosely because, amazingly, until the 1950s or so conservatism was merely a conviction in the belly, without an intellectual basis. To this day, a good definition has never been established; and in today's debased right-wing state, conservatism is defined by most conservatives as a belly-based opposition to liberalism.
(Liberalism, of course, dates back to the Enlightenment, and our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based on its long established and profoundly developed ideology.)
In any case, the term "neoliberalism" is being used to trick people who haven't familiarized themselves with arcane terms. You can see how a term with "liberal" in it that is about conservatives could be very useful if dusted off and served up to those eager to bite.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,075 posts)... that when the guard at the White House changes from Dumya to President Obama, there would be a gradual changing of the name from, "neoconservative", to, "neoliberalism". You must admit, the base instincts, as you implied, are a gut revolting uneducated opinion followed by the stink eye.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)who don't pay much attention to politics are going to be fooled by an obscure old term that seems to indicate some of its meaning, but people who frequent political forums really should look up the terminology that's served up to them.
I actually originally came to DU to get away from Far Righters and their love for any lie that served their purpose at the moment -- and that stink eye that's so intrinsic to the syndrome as well.
JHB
(37,157 posts)...although they are compatible and often go together.
Neoconservatism is mostly about foreign policy: "paleo" conservativism was more isolationist, whereas neoconservatism is more aggressive about intervening elsewhere. It developed in the 70s, incubated by 'hawk' Democrats like Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. A large number of them switched over to the Republicans under Reagan.
Neoliberalism is mostly about economics. The "liberalism" in the name is from economic jargon, and means "liberalizing" markets: freeing them from regulations, tariffs, "excessive" taxes, etc. In other words, "deregulation and free trade", the things we've been dealing with since Reagan.
KPN
(15,637 posts)please "educate" us.
I will be waiting for a cogent, informative response.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I do suggest you work on your reading comprehension before tackling complex sentences.
KPN
(15,637 posts)Put up or shut up man.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,075 posts)... "In 1973, Michael Harrington coined the term "neo-conservatism" to describe those liberal intellectuals and political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party and were moving toward a new form of conservatism.[11] Intended by Harrington as a pejorative term, it was accepted by Kristol as an apt description of the ideas and policies exemplified by The Public Interest. Unlike liberals, for example, neo-conservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson; and unlike traditional conservatives, they supported the more limited welfare state instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
Whether it is, "neo-conservativism", or "neo-liberalism", would appear to be a matter of convenience. At the basis of it all is, "liberal intellectuals", ie... enlightened.
KPN
(15,637 posts)is more like it.
Not sure your name is fitting.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,075 posts)... your job is to learn to comprehend, Grasshopper.
KPN
(15,637 posts)the structural economy. No surprise there. The term, neoliberal, is apt for Third Way ideology. Baobab is right -- there is no distinction between the two parties really when it comes to the global economy. Too many people understand that today, ergo, Bernie and -- albeit misguidedly -- Trump. So the parties will evolve, break-down or suppress voters.
Looking ahead, if Hillary wins the GE, where she goes with the TPP will say a lot about which of the futures the Ds move toward. I'm not optimistic about the Party evolving.
reACTIONary
(5,768 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)because the left ignores it.
everything monbiot uses to describe it is right there on the local rw radio stations everyday while the left sticks their fingers in theirears and walks by
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power.
hillary is probably the single most talk radio- targeted person over the last 25 years - so she and the rest of the dems have been pushed right - the whole country has - because the left continues the biggest political mistake in history, ignoring neoliberalisms biggest seller:
at a cheap $1000/hr x 15hrs/day x 1200 stations, rw talk radio is worth 4.68 BIL$/ year or 390MIL$ /month FREE for coordinated pro republican wall st think tank propaganda, hate, and swiftboating and selling neoliberalism
and then we let these 90 universities support 268 of the loudest of those stations!
but at least you got you shot in at hillary.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That's more like it since her "greatest achievements"...1st Lady and SoS.... were handed to her because of her husband's name.
We keep getting told how amazing she is, but with a foil like Sanders, it's clearly just not there. Mediocre at best.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Not going to vote for that, unify behind that, support that.
That's the writing on MY wall.
certainot
(9,090 posts)neoliberalism is what rw talk radio sells for free all day because the left ignores it .
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power.
hillary is probably the single most talk radio- targeted person over the last 25 years - so she and the rest of the dems have been pushed right - the whole country has - because the left continues the biggest political mistake in history, ignoring neoliberalisms biggest seller:
at a cheap $1000/hr x 15hrs/day x 1200 stations, rw talk radio is worth 4.68 BIL$/ year or 390MIL$ /month FREE for coordinated pro republican wall st think tank propaganda, hate, and swiftboating and selling neoliberalism
everything monbiot uses to describe it is right there on the local rw radio stations everyday while the left sticks their fingers in theirears and walks by
and then we even let these 90 universities support 268 of the loudest of those stations!
and then complain about hillary. the republicans are the problem, not hillary. hillary may be the nominee of a party that's not the republican party and is 20 pts to the right because the left and dems ignore neoliberalism's best weapon.
that's some lazy ass stuff from the left
Gore1FL
(21,102 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... Milton Friedman's "Chicago Boys" come home to roost in the good ole US of A.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)You're not getting off that easily, fella. A New Democrat is a Republican who believes in gay rights and abortion.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Case in point, Hillary's willingness to erode the right to abortions and being at the back of the gay rights parade.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)The only reason they are socially liberal is because they think it's chic and politically expedient. They don't give a fuck about equality, obviously.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)To make us believe we actually have a choice when in reality both choices lead to the same economic entrapment under which even people with social justice will suffer needlessly.
And it gives them a way to pit the people against each other. They argue only about social justice, emotional issues, and let the people divide over it and really, we are all voting against our self interests by voting for either party at this point.
Our system is broken. Badly broken. And neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party are going to fix it. This is exactly how they want it.
.
potone
(1,701 posts)I think that both parties are going to decline in importance, and new parties will form as a result of frustration with the existing duopoly. It could prove very interesting, but I fear may be too little, too late as far global warming is concerned.
KPN
(15,637 posts)they've gone a long way toward convincing me of that.
That's why I'm Bernie or Bust ... and bust if we must.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Distract, divide, and conquer.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)That's a perfectly condensed and yet concise summation of the Third-Way corporatist dems.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)jg10003
(975 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)world wide wally
(21,739 posts)We're you political philosophies ingrained in you when you were 13 years old?
You are either incredibly gifted or you never evolved
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I vote SHE never evolved....
Svafa
(594 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Now they prefer to be called neoliberals, or New Dems, or Third-Way, or whatever, but the message, and politics, remains the same; 1970's GOP.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)That's an understatement but I completely agree.
Many also think it's make believe and not real. Ugh.
Basically Bernie Voters know this. Hillary voters, not a fucking clue.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to the suffering around us. Their rationalization is their happiness.
KPN
(15,637 posts)like Bernie!
Uncle Joe
(58,297 posts)Thanks for the thread, marmar.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)You wont see it on the Democratic platform (not that the Dems ever follow their platform, checkout Obama's) but it's how Hillary rolls.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Perfect
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)But from the looks of things, yeah, we are screwed.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)that Bernie has been the catalyst for significant change. He apparently has been a yuuuge influence on the younger generation, planting a seed that could eventually mark a real sea change to the left in America over the next decade.
The question is: will that be too late?
I refused to acknowledge it as a 'thing' because of the tit for tat gamesmanship of the Pukes. Since we called them NeoCons, I figured they were just blaming us for their failures again.
But I'll gronk it sooner or later.
Oh, Goddess, not us too.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)if I understand it correctly. It's referring to the classical sense of liberalism as in unregulated "free" markets.
As the article says, Milton Friedman (about as far from New Deal liberalism as you can get) called himself a "neoliberal".
libodem
(19,288 posts)That's helpful. Hug.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)There is nothing liberal about it.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Ya beat me to it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)love neoliberalism. Then again they never complained too loud over decades of Pissed On Economics, their wallets got fat and their will got weak.
This is so true. It's destroying our lives and most of us don't even know what it is! There was even a poster in this thread that seemed to be very confused. If anyone is lost about what the term means, please go the library and get this book:
Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)it has about 100 sticky notes in it.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... mountain grammy's "Bible."
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)and real.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)and the Clinton's are part of that.
BigMin28
(1,174 posts)To make us believe we have a choice or say in the matter. In reality we are screwed.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I've been a classical liberal (a term I prefer to neoliberal) for years. I encountered the ideas, found them persuasive, and then got interested in economics and bought a bunch of books in order to educate myself on the topic. I don't think competition is the answer to every problem, but having grown up in a quasi-socialist country with a lot of central planning (and a parent who was a top level bureaucrat) I'm not too impressed with planned economies either.
It's easy to point out things you don't like about an economic system but critics of liberalism rarely offer any evidence to show that their proposals will lead to better outcomes. Mostly they just talk about the better outcomes they'd like to see and assume that defining the goal is equivalent ot having a good plan to achieve it. Well I'm for world peace and free everything, so vote for me.
beastie boy
(9,237 posts)Half of the responders have no clue what neoliberalism is.
If you think neoliberalism is synonymous with Third Wave, you are ignorant.
If you think neoliberalism and capitalism are synonymous, you are not paying attention.
If you think a 70 year old woman is the architect of a 200 year old economic theory, you are insane.
If you think Hillary carries Neoliberalism's water, you are a demagogue.
If you think any significant number of Democrats are neoliberal, you are blind.
And finally, if you think you can come up with an alternative to neoliberalism without understanding what it is, you are delusional.
...BTW, kudos to the poster who at least is aware that neoliberalism has nothing to do with FDR's liberalism (AKA social liberalism), and only has remote historical ties to it.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)It advocates deregulation, privatization, free markets and disempowering government. It's purpose is to make the accumulation of capital easier. It isn't exactly the same as capitalism, but the two go hand in hand. Neoliberalism would not exist as a functioning ideology, without capitalism.
beastie boy
(9,237 posts)if you compare it to the current practice of capitalism, you will see little neoliberalism reflected in it. In many respects, corporate capitalism flies in the face of neoliberalism: it strives to dominate markets (including labor markets), stifle competition, compel Big Government to represent and legislate its interests on a large scale, control supply and demand, etc. In fact, one may argue that the practice of capitalism is the opposite of the theory of neoliberalism, Yes, neoliberalism is being used as an ideology to cover up and deflect from the excesses of capitalism, bit this is merely a smokescreen, and with a little analysis, an increasingly obvious one.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)The last two paragraphs were spot on, and I was pleased to see no suggestion to 'reform' the capitalist system, as it simply is not possible.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Before posting comments, people should read the entire article by George Monbiot...he is a gifted writer for The Guardian UK...
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)just bullshit words to say "Economic Conservative and War Hawk but generally ok with a few civil liberties like amnesty for torture and wall street crime"
MadLinguist
(788 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)
It may be that neoliberalism is, as you say "a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency", but if so, that is most assuredly NOT what is governing the time we are living in. Merit is regularly excoriated and inefficiency is actually rewarded, so long as it keeps the supply lines in place
reACTIONary
(5,768 posts).... is just a meaningless smear term.
Wednesdays
(17,317 posts)As well as all the comments.
reACTIONary
(5,768 posts).... the author characterizes "the system" in an exagerated, lopsided, idelogically tenditious manner, and uses a multi-sylabic smear-term to give his rant an intellectual veneer.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)but that does not make the term illegitimate or meaningless. Million of people all over the world know what it is. Articles, essays, and books are written about it all the time, by some of the brightest thinkers out there.
Adherents to 'free market' ideology know instinctively, that it cannot hold up to logical and moral scrutiny.
reACTIONary
(5,768 posts).... on neoliberalism . .... it's a mess. Basically because the term has no concrete or substantial meaning. It's just used as a general smear against those on the left against those who are more central.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Even if you want to refuse to call it "neoliberalism", the ideas of free market absolutism and the accompanying idea that popular government should be minimized are destructive.
Some may try to sidetrack the conversation by arguing about semantics and the definition of terms, but regardless of what you want to call it, the underlying ideas and problems remain.
reACTIONary
(5,768 posts).... it's a bad, ill defined concept that is basically a smear term. The wiki article is a good survey, considering the subject.
beastie boy
(9,237 posts)But the demagogue media personalities began to slap the term on everyone and anyone they disliked for any reason, and that's when the term lost its meaning.
Very similar to how the right wing media delegitimizes meaningful definitions by misapplying them.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Nelson Rockefeller would be seen as a pretty liberal democrat today.
The Republicans have moved hard right but so have the democrats on non social issues.
It is all about the meritocracy for the dems, they made a decision starting with Bill Clinton to worry about the well heeled top 10% professional democrats and deftly reduce their association with blue collar democrats.
The hope lies with the younger crowd, many have figured out the smoke screen.
beastie boy
(9,237 posts)made the most radical move to the right. The Democratic party followed them, with limited success.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I can't think of anything I despise more than money - yes, it's useful, yes, it helps us survive with the constructs of society... but it is not indicative of the value of a human being, of human life - we are so much greater than that. The notion that a so called "free market" is somehow noble or grand is ridiculous. It is a belief, a practice, an ideology of idolatry that is rooted in a lack of empathy, compassion, human understanding or anything that resembles nobility.
The notion that competition is a defining characteristic of human relations is a huge part of the problem. Consider typical employment as regards purely financial concerns - the employer struggles to get the most productivity out of the worker while rewarding them as little as possible (ultimately increasing their financial capacity). This is made clear by the deep economic inequality of our time, by the difference between CEO and worker pay, by people working 80-100 hours a week just to pay the bills.
Where does this leave us? Well, with a crumbling infrastructure because those who can pay for it don't want to. With a lack of access to healthcare, food, the basic necessities of survival and prosperous life - because those who can pay for it don't want to. Why should they? They have private jets, mansions, people to cook and clean for them, access to almost anything they want. They can stash their money offshore to avoid paying taxes, pay minimum wage to any employee and claim nobility because they are "job creators". The notion that competition is a defining characteristic of human interaction has rewarded them immensely. They have crushed opposition, risen above the odds, won the race. They have more toys than they know what to do with, enough money to provide a lifetime supply of toilet paper.
The ultimate result of this kind of ideology is a barren wasteland. You can only take just so much, drain just so much... care just so little, before there are deep consequences. We are beginning to see just how deep - with climate change being the greatest example of this. We could end it, change it, repair the environment... with a few simple steps (simple if you consider that, if we don't, we're all screwed) like eliminating our fossil fuel subsidies. This has not happened, despite the growing consensus and fear that humanity may be facing an extinction level event. Some people... "got theirs" and have no interest in "using theirs" for the betterment of humanity or the world. Perhaps they figure, "Someone else will take care of the problems".
It's not just about who is rich and who is poor. It is about the simplest of things, things we ought to learn as small children. The value of sharing, of caring, of helping our neighbors, our friends, our families. The value, not of competition and wealth as the end result, but of cooperation, of mutual kindness, empathy and compassion... the end result being a better world, greater happiness, a more enlightened human race. Less suffering, less pain. This is noble. This is wisdom. This is beauty. Neoliberalism is none of these things - rather, I would suggest that it is the opposite.
We (human beings) are more than flesh and bone. We are beings capable of astoundingly deep thought, compassion... courage - and kindness. Our value, I would suggest... lies within that, not within our financial wealth, how well we compete, how well we crush the opposition. We gain far more when we work together, when we combine our strength to serve each other... than when we defeat the competition.
Common sense... unfortunately, is not so common. It should be a matter of simple common sense to understand these simple concepts. That we are all made better by kindness, by working together, by giving a damn. That we are all made worse by greed, selfishness, cruelty and ignorance.
Just my ten cents, forgive the rambling - I'm running on caffeine and adrenaline at the moment.