If neoliberalism is merely synonymous with the monetization of all human activity, the automation and outsourcing of human labour, and the coercion of human culture for profit, then I don't see why that is necessarily a problem provided society and the welfare state provides strengthened consumer rights, adequate health services, appropriate welfare provision and democratic representation for affected individuals.

If what we refer to as neoliberalism is an inevitable part of cultural and technological progress, then all that is needed is a strengthened social democracy, or even a democratic socialism to compensate the adversely affected, presumably something that requires a global universal income that in turn necessitates global social democracy.

The isolationist inclinations of Trump supporters don't seem to remedy the problem of neo-liberalism but to make its inevitable effects much worse.

Read one of the marketing greats. — Agustino

There are such things as "marketing greats"? I'll pass.

If neoliberalism is merely synonymous with the monetization of all human activity, the automation and outsourcing of human labour, and the coercion of human culture for profit, then I don't see why that is necessarily a problem provided society and the welfare state provides strengthened consumer rights, adequate health services, appropriate welfare provision and democratic representation for affected individuals. — sime

"Merely synonymous"? Nothing is mere.

The "monetization of all human activity, automation and outsourcing of human labor, and coercion of human culture for profit" is an end-stage, terminal achievement, after which there is nothing.

Neoliberalism is a good thing only for the elites. For the vast majority, life, culture, community, family, the individual become impoverished.

The most coherent and well formulated definition of neoliberalism I know comes from the political philosopher Wendy Brown, who refers to it as the "widespread economization of heretofore noneconomic domains, activities, and subjects”, such that it “extends a specific formulation of economic values, practices, and metrics to every dimension of human life.” — StreetlightX

So, it appears we have two distinct ways of quantifying humanity. The way of scientism assumes to be able to reduce human existence to something expressible by the mathematics applied to physical science. And the way of neoliberalism assumes to be able to express all human existence in terms of economic values. I guess the idea that there is such a thing as the quality of life is rather passé.

So, was Thatcher a great proponent of promiscuity?

*shudders intensily*

There are such things as "marketing greats"? I'll pass. — Bitter Crank

Why wouldn't there be? I'm not quite sure what you imply, but yes, of course there is such a thing as someone who is great at marketing, the same way there is such a thing as someone who is great at painting.

I'm familiar with some books on marketing. It's not that there are no experts on marketing, obviously there are. It's just not a field I have been interested in (outside of "social marketing") and at this point in my life, there just isn't time to take up that topic.

Doubt this adds much to the topic but I'd wager that Nietzsche and Heidegger, in somewhat different but complementary ways, could be considered (anticipatory) right-wing critics of this apparently nebulous phenomena of neoliberalism.

One could possibly even include earlier modern cultural conservatives like Burke, Schopenhauer and Rousseau in this category, but I'd leave it to other more knowledgeable members to decide if this is true or not. Yeah I know these guys lived way before the rise of neoliberalism, but I'm going off the assumption that this is just the latest unfolding of a certain historical trajectory in the West.

Seems like neither H nor N was much concerned with right or left-wing economic theories in themselves, but rather with the underlying assumptions which gave rise to the supremacy of economic thinking in the modern world in the first place.

Of course making this observation does no favors for opponents of neoliberalism who'd try to appropriate their insights in order to combat certain tendencies at work in it, since both N and H will be forever tainted with Nazi associations and thereby discredited.

But the idea that something much deeper than 'mere' economics is at play in neoliberalism is one that I find compelling. As H noted in 1935:

"Russia and America, seen metaphysically, are both the same: the same hopeless frenzy of unchained technology and of the rootless organization of the average man..."

I think it's important to note that at least some of the salient criticisms of neoliberalism - coming from both the left and the right - are not preoccupied with questions like which type of economic system is the most efficient at satisfying individual desires, but instead with the reduction of human beings to atomistic consumers in a world understood primarily as a collection of exploitable resources; 'human resources', 'information resources', etc etc.

Again, this wider movement (hyperbolic as it may be) could take place under a free market or a communist one, but the guiding relationship to the world is largely one of calculation and exploitation, albeit under the more respectable guises of spreading democracy, advancing individual 'freedoms' and improving the quality of life of vast numbers of people around the globe.

As a descendant of rabble myself I'm not as quick to dismiss the emancipatory aspects of modernity as many previous critics of socialism, capitalism, liberal democracy, advanced technology and other such things have been.

Anyhow, this is one area where even these culturally 'conservative' thinkers may line up with more progressive left-wing types, to me at least, especially when it comes to things like environmental protection (deep ecology), educational reform, cultivating strong communal bonds, the role of the arts in society, etc.

In an ideal world we could appropriate the many material and other benefits of neoliberalism (technological advancements, medicine, etc.) while curbing some of the unfortunate consequences (e.g. individual alienation, the general cheapening of life, a narrow understanding of the purpose of education). Highly unlikely though.