http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
He is such a good essayist.
Also, Simon Wren-Lewis
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2016/05/neoliberalism.html
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
He is such a good essayist.
Also, Simon Wren-Lewis
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2016/05/neoliberalism.html
Had it flagged to diary. It’s the most thorough and concise overall definition and explanation of neoliberalism out there.
Curious about the quote policy in these diaries. Is worth an entire presentation, imo.
Fair use (Stanford University Library)
A link to the original, identifying the author and/or publication, and a clearly identified quote of a “few” paragraphs and/or sentences has been accepted as okay. When in doubt about “few” use fewer. Whether legally acceptable or not, I also consider the reasons why I’m borrowing from a piece to write a diary to assess what “few” means. Generally, if it’s something that I think is so good and others may benefit from reading it (like Monbiot’s) and I’m adding nothing of my own or others, pulling one or two of the opening paragraphs as a teaser seems respectful. (Many dKos diarists (some with large followings) seem to think that borrowing more than three paragraphs and paraphrasing the rest of the original for a lengthy diary is okay. It’s not.) The quote above is right on the line between okay and too much.
Thanks.
The problem really is ideological. We live in an age where neoliberalism exists as the background to pretty much all political debate: for example the degree to which you think the deficit is something worth worrying about is exactly the degree to which you assume that private industry generates wealth and public services do not. The fact that there isn’t an economic metric which distinguishes between public goods and private goods, they’re all just wealth, doesn’t even get looked at and this is entirely because neoliberalism is always assumed, never argued for.
Some of us happen to be tired of the fact that highly political claims about the nature of wealth are treated as unobjectionable and that’s what Sanders (and Jeremy Corbyn) represents, a way to challenge this intellectual status quo.(http://coreyrobin.com/2016/04/15/magical-realism-and-other-neoliberal-delusions/)
Thanks for sharing. This man writes so clearly. For years I called the principles of neoliberalism, libertarianism, because that is how it was presented. Monbiot mentions libertarianism in the essay. It’s clear neoliberals don’t really want true libertarianism.
Without an adequate layer of government, who is going to protect people from the corporations, oligarchs, and financial wizards? Unions are struggling as they are attacked by Repubs and barely supported by some Dems. What else do people have? This essay should be required reading before people enter the voting booth.
P.S. Have you ever looked at the relationship between neoliberalism and neoconservatism? Is there such a connection?
Neoconservatism concerns itself with American foreign policy. Definitely some pro-Israeli roots in its formation and policy priorities.
This is a pretty good wiki…http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
It is perfectly common to be a neocon AND a neolib. Both establishment parties tend that way.
Yes that connection exists. It’s what led Billmon to coin “neoliberalcon.”
They developed in parallel with each other over the same time period and there were check-points that altered their course. At a simplistic level, both do seem to have been incubated within the DEM party and go back a hundred years.
Very much like as well his other article on that page
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/age-of-loneliness-killing-us
Much food for thought in that one. Has industrialization and materialism made us more isolated creatures or were we once more social beings by necessity that over-rode our natural inclination for being separated?
This is just sad: British children no longer aspire to be train drivers or nurses – more than a fifth say they “just want to be rich”: wealth and fame are the sole ambitions of 40% of those surveyed.
Not the wealth part so much — humans have long desired that because it frees them from the stress of day-to-day survival and means living with greater comfort devoid of having to take care of the nasty bits in life and the freedom for more hedonist activities. Except indolence and hedonistic pleasures does shorten one’s life. It’s the desire for fame that’s disturbing. One has to be a bit nuts to desire that level of public attention and scrutiny on a daily basis. Can’t go anywhere without body guards and being accosted by strangers that feel a need to touch a famous person in some way as if it confers some status to themselves. Sounds like horrible way to live.
YouTube rather than the cinema.
I’m fortunate to have a local cheap seat cinema ($3.50) (it gets a high percentage of movies right after they’ve completed their first run). Unfortunately, not many people take advantage of it. Went last week and didn’t much enjoy the movie. Yet, most of the pieces in it were good and the overall story was clever. Occurred to me that it might have been a hoot to watch with a large audience that got all the movie historical references instead of an empty theater.
what was the movie?
“Hail, Caesar!” Don’t take my comment as a recommendation — still don’t think it gelled and all the pieces that should have been funny weren’t. Nice performances by Josh Brolin and Channing Tatum, but several others were flat. The Coen brothers do know how to make movies that IMO are pitch perfect on all levels; so, I remain perplexed as to what went wrong with this one.
to be honest, I am a Coen brothers non fan from way back; but movie did look interesting, have not had a chance to watch it though. will try to take a look
Not a fan of their comedies, but that seems to be because I don’t share their quirky or off-center sense of humor. “Fargo” and “Inside Llewyn Davis” are in my “perfect movie” category.
Suggestion on “Hail, Caesar!” see it on a big screen. Most of the best bits will suffer on a small screen.
yes, sounds good. on the others we can agree to disagree
Here is another enlightening article by Montbiot. With the disease of neoliberalism running rampant, it’s time to line up and get the vaccine.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35668-george-monbiot-never-ending-growth-cannot-be-sustained-on-a
-finite-planet
Guess I should read Monbiot’s book. What that interview highlighted for me is why we are so complacent about AGW and why we are unlikely to act with all due speed to deal with it. We simply don’t have the “we can do anything” mindset required for this problem. Yet, we know that we once did have such a mindset and it’s a frame of reference for those lived it at some point in their lives. Then it began slipping away — almost imperceptible slippage.
The Boomers were labeled as the “me generation.” But not so named until the ’70s which just happened to coincide with the rise of neoliberalism that wasn’t being driven by the Boomers. Whether by design or luck, it denigrated and divided a generation that proceeded to be blind as to the real forces in play and beginning to gather strength and power. Had those forces not been totally discredited by the Great Depression and remained in ascendancy through the 1930s, the world would have ended up in a much different place by 1945 and little to nothing of a progressive nature would have come into being in the subsequent three decades because all that required collective effort and/or approval.
yes, you should read it. in your reply to my comment you seemed to miss his point about collective vs. individual and how that plays into today’s motivations. also, cultures differ widely on value of acquiring wealth, or even what that means. read mary douglas.
I need to read Monboit’s book, as well. As you’ve stated, a situation always looks different in real time vs. history. It’s like the difference between cross-sectional analysis and trend analysis. The snapshots look different from the photographic collage. I never connected the “me generation” with the rise of neoliberalism. I just attributed it to the PTB influencing the MSM, who I did see as really working overtime to dispell the “peace, love, and anti-materialism” of the 60’s movement. (It is funny to see old college buddies I recognized that we were in deep doo-doo when Reagan was elected, but the Dems still had Tip O’Neill types in positions of power. Of course, then came the Clintons. The Great Recession of 2008 ignited some fires and it will be interesting to see what happens. It’s time for the era of neoliberalism and it’s sidekick, neoconservativism, to be relegated to the dustbin of history.
When that “me generation” rap first surfaced it didn’t compute for me. From my perspective, it applied more to those I knew and worked with that were in the McCain generation. They had a harder time adjusting to women colleagues than the WWII guys (who by and large were kind and generous to me), were more apt to cheat on and abuse their expense accounts, viewed themselves as “Playboy” type stud-muffins, and had achieved higher income and more wealth than their parents because of the depression baby bust and far less competition when they completed their education and got their jobs.
Monbiot’s interview was the first time that I too had ever connected a dot between neoliberalism and the “me generation” rap. It wasn’t spurious or coincidental. It said it was selfish not object to war (possibly some truth in that for some Vietnam era male Boomers that objected to their own butts being sent there and not the horrors of the war itself). Selfish to reject materialism. Selfish to have a respect for then environment and in everyday ways minimize one’s destructive impacts on it. “War is peace.”
Excuse my mistake. I didn’t finish my parenthetical thought in the comment above.
(It is funny to see old college buddies who were very active in the peace movement having supported GWB with great vigor.)
More like horrifying. But predictable because they were likely more self-styled, superficial (asshole) libertarians way back when; so, they didn’t exactly grow-up over the decades and GWB was a substitute for their youthful (and homoerotic) fascination with John Wayne. (As an attorney colleague and woman said to me in 2000, GWB is like the guy that women in college would date once and never want to see him again.)
Adding fladem’s excellent link on the DLC-type neoliberalism.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1983/8305_Neoliberalism.pdf
Adding Corey Robin’s excellent historical piece on American 90’s.
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/04/27/when-neoliberalism-was-young-a-lookback-on-clintonism-before-clinto
n/
From the comments: First and foremost, in recent years I’ve fallen more under the sway of a Hegelian mode of thinking about political movements, history, and the world. There is no clear(er) example of the dialectical movement of a concept than that of “freedom” or “liberty.” What Neoliberalism represents historically is when the concepts and contradictions of Liberalism as it was practiced in the New Deal era were finally turned against themselves and a reversal of it into its opposite. All concepts and notions cut both ways, freedom and liberty are no different. Above all else, that’s what neoliberalism, from the Chicago/Austrian School to hack pundits like Chait represent. They have turned the core principles of liberalism on itself and used them to shore up justification for hierarchy and oppression.
An excellent economic breakdown.
http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Financial_skeptic/secular_stagnation.shtml