One of the things long-time followers on Twitter know about me (besides the most important fact that I am the Stakhanov of the dad joke) is that I like to come up with definitions for neoliberalism.
"Neoliberalism is the belief that capitalism is a revolutionary force; that the nation-state is a transitory historical formation, and that peasant and petit-bourgeois politics alternates between atavism and outright reaction. So it’s basically just Belle-Epoque Marxism."
Not just Belle-Epoque Marxism, the Communist Manifesto from 1848 basically conveys exactly this message (though of course unlike neoliberalism it also sees capitalism itself as a transitory historical formation):
"The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. ... The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."
Please see huge problems with “free trade and free movement of labor overseen by a strong central state”: labor means workers. Workers are people.
Money can move freely and instantly with no adjustment; trade can move smooth and fast with some adjustment; people... can't. People eat, speak different languages, grow up in different cultures, and do not ship well across oceans in packing containers. Even your extremely kind outline of neoliberalism leads to robbing workers and shunting more money to richer people.
Thank you for the comment. I do have another 3 posts here on the stack “Post-neoliberalism”, “Burden”, and “It depends” that make the argument that AROUND THE WORLD (the title of the stack includes the word Globalist after all), aspects of neoliberalism have helped IN ABSOLUTE TERMS (i.e. income gains at the bottom alongside increasing inequality) more people than they have hurt. So I take your point but have a different frame of reference.
Thanks! I don't know how to gauge results of neoliberal policy, because it has legions of faithful and enthusiastic propagandists. I only discovered a year ago that capitalist policies in China, approved and praised by neoliberals, led to an increase of extreme poverty:
"Neoliberalism is the belief that capitalism is a revolutionary force; that the nation-state is a transitory historical formation, and that peasant and petit-bourgeois politics alternates between atavism and outright reaction. So it’s basically just Belle-Epoque Marxism."
Not just Belle-Epoque Marxism, the Communist Manifesto from 1848 basically conveys exactly this message (though of course unlike neoliberalism it also sees capitalism itself as a transitory historical formation):
"The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. ... The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."
Please see huge problems with “free trade and free movement of labor overseen by a strong central state”: labor means workers. Workers are people.
Money can move freely and instantly with no adjustment; trade can move smooth and fast with some adjustment; people... can't. People eat, speak different languages, grow up in different cultures, and do not ship well across oceans in packing containers. Even your extremely kind outline of neoliberalism leads to robbing workers and shunting more money to richer people.
Thank you for the comment. I do have another 3 posts here on the stack “Post-neoliberalism”, “Burden”, and “It depends” that make the argument that AROUND THE WORLD (the title of the stack includes the word Globalist after all), aspects of neoliberalism have helped IN ABSOLUTE TERMS (i.e. income gains at the bottom alongside increasing inequality) more people than they have hurt. So I take your point but have a different frame of reference.
Thanks! I don't know how to gauge results of neoliberal policy, because it has legions of faithful and enthusiastic propagandists. I only discovered a year ago that capitalist policies in China, approved and praised by neoliberals, led to an increase of extreme poverty:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2023.2217087
Thanks for the special french jokes.
I always try to make sure there are terrible puns. That’s the special sauce.