I'm not going to defend neoliberalism or the right wing Brexit ultras, but I'll note that Brexit did arguably represent the chance to escape from the neoliberalism of the EU (aside from whether and how that could actually have succeeded). From that point of view, the dominance of neoliberals among pro-Brexit political leaders is owing to a failure of the Left to get behind and shape the Brexit movement, which I'm tempted to say is or was, like Trump's election to president, an expression of people's frustration with the neoliberal policies that, as Monbiot points out, have done a lot of harm.

But maybe the Brexit angle is not your focus.

I don't really understand the article. "Neoliberalism" is often characterized as essentially libertarianism, but libertarians aren't conservatives, and by no means was Reagan a libertarian.

I don't really understand the article. "Neoliberalism" is often characterized as essentially libertarianism, but libertarians aren't conservatives, and by no means was Reagan a libertarian. — Terrapin Station

The article explains how Reagan made use of neoliberal thought. But, you say, neoliberalism is often characterized as essentially libertarian. Reagan wasn't a libertarian. He was conservative. Conservatives aren't libertarian. So if neoliberals are often characterized as essentially libertarian, and reagan is a conservative, and so not libertarian, how could he be neoliberal?

hmmmm :chin:

If only there were a weak link or two here, the removal of which would make everything fall into place!

I bought a book of Monbiot’s columns and generally agree with him. Note that central to this thesis, from the first piece, is this:

[Neoliberal economics] treats competition as humanity’s defining characteristic, sees citizens as consumers and “the market” as society’s organising principle. The market, it claims, sorts us into a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Any attempt by politics to intervene disrupts the discovery of this natural order.

I think neoliberalism implicitly rests on neodarwinism which provides its underlying rationale. It is the culmination of Enlightenment values sans Christian social conscience. I don’t mean by that there could be or ought to be a return to institutional Christianity but there has to be a critique of the underlying worldview.

Brexit is about sovereignty I think, more then specifically neoliberalism.

A bureaucratic EU that is notoriously hard to maneuver, has been a torn in the eye of many UK actors seeking to be in controle. It effectively reduced their agency from being relevant powerbrokers in a world-empire, to that of one of countless pawns of a member-state in a EU that saw it's position decline over the years.

The specifics of the ideology matter less then the brute fact of being in a position of controle I'd think, although some sort of neo-liberalism would seem to be a nice fit in that it conveniently happens to have the effect of channeling wealth into the hands of a few.

Anyway, I disagree that ideology is the main driving factor here eventhough there are undoubtedly some true believers that swallowed it whole.

Reagan didn't really do anything in the vein of libertarianism.

hmmm. the plot thickens.

hmmm. the plot thickens. — csalisbury

Yeah, but the plot sucks.

as far as Brexit is concerned, I'm sure the factor that tipped the referendum was basically xenophobia. But we ought not to point fingers on that account. There are many people challenged by population and migration patterns.

Hmmm. What was the plot?

Are you relaying koans?

Think of it like a mystery novel. all the clues are there. Why is the article confusing? Whats the weak link?

Why is the article confusing? — csalisbury

Wasn't that what my first post was about? :-\ :-/

Wasn't that what my first post was about? :-\ :-/ — Terrapin Station

yep

The article explains how Reagan made use of neoliberal thought. But, you say, neoliberalism is often characterized as essentially libertarian. Reagan wasn't a libertarian. He was conservative. Conservatives aren't libertarian. So if neoliberals are often characterized as essentially libertarian, and reagan is a conservative, and so not libertarian, how could he be neoliberal?

hmmmm :chin:

If only there were a weak link or two here, the removal of which would make everything fall into place! — csalisbury

Everyone becomes conservative once they get their own way.

Even one promoting continuous revolution wants the revolution to - continue.

Racists often deny being racists, and fascists often deny being fascists.

"I'm not fascist, but I believe that there should be no hindrance made to the strong by a coalition of the weak."

Thus every fascism is in principle against every other fascism as being just such a coalition, unlike their own leader who has followers. :vomit:

I'm afraid I am not coming to neoliberalism's defence and ask for forgivement for naughtiness.

Generally in neoliberalism there is the idea of economic freedom and political freedom going together. However, in practice, at least, this freedom is radically different for individual citizens and corporations and financial institutions each of which are given rights like people (corporate personhood) but powers and freedoms no citizen can have. I cannot lend you 10,000 bucks and then have magically appear in my account the right to invest that many times over. I do not have limited liability. I cannot influence political leaders in the ways corporations and financial organizations can. Yes, one could look at them as groups of citizens, but they actually have more power than that. And since it is their business to improve their business and this means increase their power, I do not see economic freedom leading to political freedom through neoliberalism. There are other issues like the tension between privitization and the commons, that I also think inhibit citizen freedom. But I won't try to go into an essay I am not competent to write. I just wanted to focus on what I think is a couple of the core flaws in what is assumed in neoliberalism, that need not be, for example, in a libertarianism that did indeed try to avoid giving organizations hallucinatory powers.

beep

The article explains how Reagan made use of neoliberal thought. But, you say, neoliberalism is often characterized as essentially libertarian. Reagan wasn't a libertarian. He was conservative. Conservatives aren't libertarian. So if neoliberals are often characterized as essentially libertarian, and reagan is a conservative, and so not libertarian, how could he be neoliberal?

hmmmm :chin:

If only there were a weak link or two here, the removal of which would make everything fall into place! — csalisbury

“Neoliberalism” almost always has a negative connotation, is used pejoratively, and as such no one actually uses the label to describe himself or his ideas.

Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan

The third-way politics and policies we see today could be better described as “neo socialism”, as exemplified by Tony Blair: “My kind of socialism is a set of values, based around notions of social justice ... The objective - a modern civic society in which all individuals have the ability to develop their potential - places us firmly within the tradition of social democracy and democratic socialism." Blaire’s “kind of socialism”, his third-way triangulation, is now in disfavor, leading to Brexit and other populist campaigns.

I think “neosocialism” works better to describe the current model (for instance in the EU) while still resembling the neosocialism of the past:

Déat replaced class struggle with class collaboration and national solidarity, advocated corporatism as a model of social organisation, replaced the notion of socialism with anti-capitalism and supported a technocratic state which would plan the economy and in which parliamentarism would be replaced by political technocracy.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neosocialism

We are not seeing the elephant in the room and that is migration and racism. All these brown people and foreigners 'invading' Britain and the US is what has created this popular movement. Racists want to keep Britain and the US ethnically white and the lower class is seeing their jobs being taken over by foreigners. In the meantime their social benefits are being eroded while the rich get even richer.

Do you even read what you link to? To describe Tony Blair as a neosocialist because he once used the word "socialism" in a speech and then link to an article that clearly shows he definitely wasn't that is at best an extreme example of intellectual laziness. If you know nothing about something, please stay mum until you do. You at least know enough about Trump to present some superficially plausible lies, which to my mind is more laudable than this kind of malarkey.

We are not seeing the elephant in the room and that is migration and racism. All these brown people and foreigners 'invading' Britain and the US is what has created this popular movement. Racists want to keep Britain and the US ethnically white and the lower class is seeing their jobs being taken over by foreigners. — ovdtogt

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man’s used in the hands of them all like a tool
He’s taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
’Bout the shape that he’s in
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game. — Bob Dylan

That's not an elephant, that's a propaganda machine in action, 'because you're worth it'.

Do you even read what you link to? To describe Tony Blair as a neosocialist because he once used the word "socialism" in a speech and then link to an article that clearly shows he definitely wasn't that is at best an extreme example of intellectual laziness. If you know nothing about something, please stay mum until you do. You at least know enough about Trump to present some superficially plausible lies, which to my mind is more laudable than this kind of malarkey.

It’s a far more accurate term than “neoliberalism”, which is a boogie-man. Blair wasn’t the only one who spoke like this.

Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism and said: "My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice. [...] Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly".[6] Blair referred to it as a "social-ism" involving politics that recognised individuals as socially interdependent and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen and equal opportunity.[7] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxist claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[8] In 2009, Blair publicly declared support for a "new capitalism".[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

I think neosocialism is a far more accurate term to describe the failed and unpopular policies of the third-way, which is currently being rejected. So please make an argument or stay mum.

It’s a far more accurate term than “neoliberalism”, which is a boogie-man. — NOS4A2

Why?

I think neosocialism is a far more accurate term to describe the failed and unpopular policies of the third-way — NOS4A2

Why?

So please make an argument or stay mum. — NOS4A2

You've made an assertion without argument or evidence. Just make an effort to back it up and I'll show you where you're going wrong.

Why?

Simply because Third Way policies came from the minds of socialists, not liberals, as I just quoted.

Given that one of the central planks of neoliberalism is the atomization of society and the destruction of the 'social', one can only laugh at the idea that it really ought to be called 'neosocialism'. Hayek literally wrote books against the notion of the social, and Thatcher famously declared that 'there is no such thing as society' - neosocialism? Big lols.

The third way philosophy explicitly rejects “neoliberalism”. So there’s that.

Yes, and most cunts rejects the idea that they are cunts. Nonetheless...

The idea that Hayek’s ideas reign supreme in social democracies is patently absurd.

Oh my sweet summer child.