Terry - No, neoliberalism goes beyond money and flirting with autocracy; it seeks the complete dominance of government that aims to structure society in the interest of money - and to infuse this ideology at the grassroots.
The most thorough analysis on this topic is "The New Way of the World: On Neliberal Society", by Pierre Dardot and C…
Terry - No, neoliberalism goes beyond money and flirting with autocracy; it seeks the complete dominance of government that aims to structure society in the interest of money - and to infuse this ideology at the grassroots.
The most thorough analysis on this topic is "The New Way of the World: On Neliberal Society", by Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, especially chapter 9: "Manufacturing the neoliberal subject" (pp. 255-299). It is a good book, well translated from the French, but written almost like a text book. I'd definitely recommend it; however, if you'd prefer something easier to read, I'd suggest "The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competetion", by William Davies. Or "The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy", by Noreena Hertz. Or "The Austerity State", edited by Stephen MacBride and Bryan Evans. There is also a book by Edward Luce called "The Retreat of Western Liberalism". This is in many ways an excellent book but Luce doesn't name neoliberalism as the culprit - except once, on p. 196!
Your wrong Terry, neo liberalism is taking government out of business. Putting government in Business is the classic definition of fascism. That is what Mussolini meant and did when he coined the term. His Chamber of Deputies was comprised of CEO's and Representatives from Italian corporations.
Lenin even said of the Soviet Union, it is State Capitalism, it was a combine of seven trusts organized along resource lines.
Neo-liberalism is a power philosophy created in 1938 (Lippmann, Hayak, Mises, later Friedman, etc) that saw politics as a vehicle to assure free-markets AND influence social issues. So, it's both political and economic -- but economic at its core.
Free markets, John, by neo liberal definition, are those devoid of government regulations, so it's use of politics is to rid the market of government regulations, that is why a major cause of Republicans is to dismantle the administrative state.
Correct. But to "rid the market of government regulation" you must have CONTROL of government policy, as the 1938 Lippman meeting concluded. Hence, neo-liberals use control of politics as a vehicle to establish de-regulated policies. Neo-liberals successfully lobbied Jimmy Carter (and Congress) to dramatically reduce Cap Gains tax rates in the late 1970s. This was followed by Reagan-Thatcher going "all-in" on neo-liberal policies in the 1980s, which dramatically reduced govt regulation while also reducing net tax rates on ultra-high incomes. Since 1980, these neo-liberal policies have redistributed HALF of middle-class wealth into the top 10%, and mostly the top 1%, and mostly again into the top 0.1%. At current rate of wealth redistribution, by 2050 the U.S. will become a kind of serfdom, with over 50% of national wealth held by the top 2% families and trusts.
John L. - You're absolutely correct. This probably sounds strange to William Farrar, so may I quote from my favourite book on neoliberalism, namely "The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society", by Dardot and Laval:
"... far from clashing with the logic of competition, [the government's] task is to remove all the obstacles to the free play of the markets by a veritable policing of the markets, one example of which is the struggle against cartels" (p. 86). - "The state must obviously start by respecting equality of opportunity in the competitive game, by abolishing anything that might resemble priviledge or protection granted to some special interest at the expense of others. One of the doctrine's main arguments, which we come across in other liberal currents, is that one of the principal tendencies in capitalism - excessive concentration and cartelization of industry - is not endogenous in nature, but originates in policies of priviledge and protection pursued by the state when it is under the control of large private interests. This is why a 'strong state', capable of resisting all pressure groups and free of 'Manchester School' dogmas of the minimum state, is required" (p. 88).
It's interesting, isn't it, that according to neoliberalism, in order to achieve 'free markets', a very strong state must ensure through regulation that the markets remains 'free'.
Hayek's quarrel was with those who favored a planned economy, not with market regulation. Later in life he explicitly broke with libertarianism, and argued that a modern economy needed a safety net for the less fortunate.
Libertarian ism leads inevitably to serfdom, For it to succeed requires the cooperation of like minded individuals, who respect each other and voluntarily accept the consensus opinion of everyone else.
Doesn't happen in reality, a strong man will emerge, then the strong mans cup bearers, his chamberlain,his courtiers and before you know it back to serfdom.
John, and Gunnar, I'm so sorry that the word "liberal" is part of that movement's lexicon, the way I don't like the word "socialism" in the title: National Socialism (Hitler's fascism). Whenever you see this kind of cross-over it's not a good sign.
Yes, neo liberals use government to achieve their ends of an unregulated free market. The statement is intuitively obvious. How else can they achieve that end, and as a matter of fact, that is what much of the political battle field is really all about.
The billionaires and corporations use the power of money, to buy politicians and political powers so they can neuter the government and the agencies created to control them. Nixon created the EPA, and the money powers have been after it (Big Ag, Mining, the Chemical Petroleum cabal) to defang and neuter it or just shut it's doors.
Shut down OSHA the NLRB, anything that interferes the ability of billionaires to buy a new Jet airliner or build a refugee on a mountain top or under the ocean.
OK. I am not arguing with you. What then do you propose as a solution? So neo liberals have screwed up the country, no argument here. They have used the immense power of the purse, to gain favor, no argument there, they have done it with Republicans and Democrats, no argument there.
It's less of an argument, and more of a treatise on fundamental greed and fundamental power, perhaps baked in to the human evolutionary condition. A class-cycle that has repeated itself throughout recorded history.
On that we agree, it started when a dude dressed in animal skins picked up the jawbone of an ass or leg of a mammoth and clubbed others into submission.
Terry - I'm not an expert on monarchism. I'd say that absolute monarchism allows for the active interference and regulation by the monarch in his country's economic affairs, whereas a constitutional monarch is supposed to sit back and allow the elected government get on with it.
The UK is not an Absolute or Constitutional Monarchy ....and there is no UK Constitution. Parliament rules and the monarchy has no say.... no veto.... no approval. The monarchy in the UK is the head of state and can do nothing as far as governing is concerned. Essentially all the monarchy in the UK can do is ask (beg) but never direct or order.
Yes, there are such models as Constitutional Monarchies but I don't know much about them except by their title.
Trump wants to be an Absolute Monarch. That's what he thought he would have by now but things kept getting in the way. He'll make sure that doesn't happen this time around and the Heritage Foundation is running interference to make it so. What fun. Of course the people behind him are Christian Nationalists. If Trump were to succeed it would be because of these people and his administration will be packed to the gills with them. How does King Donald sound? King Donald Jr?
Terry - Your comment on the UK monarchy and the British Constitution contradicts the evidence. The British Constitution is based on tradition and precedence. Hence, Boris Johnson's attempt to prorogue Parliament failed in the face of the opposition from the Judiciary.
So therfore, we have a Constitutional monarchy. The difference is that our Constitution is unwritten - or written down in various places.
As for the British monarch. He/she certainly wields considerable influence sometimes. How much real power - the power to actually override government. This we simply don't know. We assume he/she doesn't do that - but we don't know.
I understand what your're saying but isn't a Constitution by its nature a written and published document? Also your writing it made it seem as though the Monarch had real power of some kind. There's no evidence of that. And yes, you have a Judiciary but not necessarily one with a final say like the US. In any case, the Monarch is really not a player in the UK game of governance....and I've not heard of anyone holding their breath in the last 100 or so years.. As I understand it the UK Constitution is kind of scattered documents (Magna Carta as a founding doc) and of course unwritten Common Law is used to bridge the gaps. Do you think there will ever come a time to pull it all together and actually publish?
Terry - No, neoliberalism goes beyond money and flirting with autocracy; it seeks the complete dominance of government that aims to structure society in the interest of money - and to infuse this ideology at the grassroots.
The most thorough analysis on this topic is "The New Way of the World: On Neliberal Society", by Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, especially chapter 9: "Manufacturing the neoliberal subject" (pp. 255-299). It is a good book, well translated from the French, but written almost like a text book. I'd definitely recommend it; however, if you'd prefer something easier to read, I'd suggest "The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competetion", by William Davies. Or "The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy", by Noreena Hertz. Or "The Austerity State", edited by Stephen MacBride and Bryan Evans. There is also a book by Edward Luce called "The Retreat of Western Liberalism". This is in many ways an excellent book but Luce doesn't name neoliberalism as the culprit - except once, on p. 196!
The logic of competition: it is efficiency vs. human rights. As Prof. Reich points out, the key issue is who benefits and by what means.
Your wrong Terry, neo liberalism is taking government out of business. Putting government in Business is the classic definition of fascism. That is what Mussolini meant and did when he coined the term. His Chamber of Deputies was comprised of CEO's and Representatives from Italian corporations.
Lenin even said of the Soviet Union, it is State Capitalism, it was a combine of seven trusts organized along resource lines.
Thanks for the references. Neo liberalism is a political philosophy, am I correct?
Neo-liberalism is a power philosophy created in 1938 (Lippmann, Hayak, Mises, later Friedman, etc) that saw politics as a vehicle to assure free-markets AND influence social issues. So, it's both political and economic -- but economic at its core.
Free markets, John, by neo liberal definition, are those devoid of government regulations, so it's use of politics is to rid the market of government regulations, that is why a major cause of Republicans is to dismantle the administrative state.
Correct. But to "rid the market of government regulation" you must have CONTROL of government policy, as the 1938 Lippman meeting concluded. Hence, neo-liberals use control of politics as a vehicle to establish de-regulated policies. Neo-liberals successfully lobbied Jimmy Carter (and Congress) to dramatically reduce Cap Gains tax rates in the late 1970s. This was followed by Reagan-Thatcher going "all-in" on neo-liberal policies in the 1980s, which dramatically reduced govt regulation while also reducing net tax rates on ultra-high incomes. Since 1980, these neo-liberal policies have redistributed HALF of middle-class wealth into the top 10%, and mostly the top 1%, and mostly again into the top 0.1%. At current rate of wealth redistribution, by 2050 the U.S. will become a kind of serfdom, with over 50% of national wealth held by the top 2% families and trusts.
John L. - You're absolutely correct. This probably sounds strange to William Farrar, so may I quote from my favourite book on neoliberalism, namely "The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society", by Dardot and Laval:
"... far from clashing with the logic of competition, [the government's] task is to remove all the obstacles to the free play of the markets by a veritable policing of the markets, one example of which is the struggle against cartels" (p. 86). - "The state must obviously start by respecting equality of opportunity in the competitive game, by abolishing anything that might resemble priviledge or protection granted to some special interest at the expense of others. One of the doctrine's main arguments, which we come across in other liberal currents, is that one of the principal tendencies in capitalism - excessive concentration and cartelization of industry - is not endogenous in nature, but originates in policies of priviledge and protection pursued by the state when it is under the control of large private interests. This is why a 'strong state', capable of resisting all pressure groups and free of 'Manchester School' dogmas of the minimum state, is required" (p. 88).
It's interesting, isn't it, that according to neoliberalism, in order to achieve 'free markets', a very strong state must ensure through regulation that the markets remains 'free'.
It just occurred to me that when Hayek wrote "Road to Serfdom" he probably never realized that serfdom would be caused by his own ideology.
Hayek's quarrel was with those who favored a planned economy, not with market regulation. Later in life he explicitly broke with libertarianism, and argued that a modern economy needed a safety net for the less fortunate.
Libertarian ism leads inevitably to serfdom, For it to succeed requires the cooperation of like minded individuals, who respect each other and voluntarily accept the consensus opinion of everyone else.
Doesn't happen in reality, a strong man will emerge, then the strong mans cup bearers, his chamberlain,his courtiers and before you know it back to serfdom.
John, and Gunnar, I'm so sorry that the word "liberal" is part of that movement's lexicon, the way I don't like the word "socialism" in the title: National Socialism (Hitler's fascism). Whenever you see this kind of cross-over it's not a good sign.
Which sounds like an oxymoron. Seems that Trump though would like to fiddle as he sees fit. Sounds like a set up to me.
Yes, neo liberals use government to achieve their ends of an unregulated free market. The statement is intuitively obvious. How else can they achieve that end, and as a matter of fact, that is what much of the political battle field is really all about.
The billionaires and corporations use the power of money, to buy politicians and political powers so they can neuter the government and the agencies created to control them. Nixon created the EPA, and the money powers have been after it (Big Ag, Mining, the Chemical Petroleum cabal) to defang and neuter it or just shut it's doors.
Shut down OSHA the NLRB, anything that interferes the ability of billionaires to buy a new Jet airliner or build a refugee on a mountain top or under the ocean.
OK. I am not arguing with you. What then do you propose as a solution? So neo liberals have screwed up the country, no argument here. They have used the immense power of the purse, to gain favor, no argument there, they have done it with Republicans and Democrats, no argument there.
So where is the argument?
It's less of an argument, and more of a treatise on fundamental greed and fundamental power, perhaps baked in to the human evolutionary condition. A class-cycle that has repeated itself throughout recorded history.
On that we agree, it started when a dude dressed in animal skins picked up the jawbone of an ass or leg of a mammoth and clubbed others into submission.
How does it compare to monarchism?
Terry - I'm not an expert on monarchism. I'd say that absolute monarchism allows for the active interference and regulation by the monarch in his country's economic affairs, whereas a constitutional monarch is supposed to sit back and allow the elected government get on with it.
However, there are hybrid 'systems'. You may be aware that Prince Charles of Britain often wrote letters to Ministers of the Crown, making suggestions, even urging them to take certain steps. We also know that his mother effected a considerable number of changes in various laws - changes that benefitted the Queen and her family. - See for example https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818 and https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a36608416/queen-law-exemptions/
The UK is not an Absolute or Constitutional Monarchy ....and there is no UK Constitution. Parliament rules and the monarchy has no say.... no veto.... no approval. The monarchy in the UK is the head of state and can do nothing as far as governing is concerned. Essentially all the monarchy in the UK can do is ask (beg) but never direct or order.
Yes, there are such models as Constitutional Monarchies but I don't know much about them except by their title.
Trump wants to be an Absolute Monarch. That's what he thought he would have by now but things kept getting in the way. He'll make sure that doesn't happen this time around and the Heritage Foundation is running interference to make it so. What fun. Of course the people behind him are Christian Nationalists. If Trump were to succeed it would be because of these people and his administration will be packed to the gills with them. How does King Donald sound? King Donald Jr?
Terry - Your comment on the UK monarchy and the British Constitution contradicts the evidence. The British Constitution is based on tradition and precedence. Hence, Boris Johnson's attempt to prorogue Parliament failed in the face of the opposition from the Judiciary.
So therfore, we have a Constitutional monarchy. The difference is that our Constitution is unwritten - or written down in various places.
As for the British monarch. He/she certainly wields considerable influence sometimes. How much real power - the power to actually override government. This we simply don't know. We assume he/she doesn't do that - but we don't know.
I understand what your're saying but isn't a Constitution by its nature a written and published document? Also your writing it made it seem as though the Monarch had real power of some kind. There's no evidence of that. And yes, you have a Judiciary but not necessarily one with a final say like the US. In any case, the Monarch is really not a player in the UK game of governance....and I've not heard of anyone holding their breath in the last 100 or so years.. As I understand it the UK Constitution is kind of scattered documents (Magna Carta as a founding doc) and of course unwritten Common Law is used to bridge the gaps. Do you think there will ever come a time to pull it all together and actually publish?