So What's Neoliberalism?

[Staunton 18]

In order to understand politics today it is essential to be aware of the ideology known as neoliberalism. It explains the politics of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair. David Cameron's 'big society', and George Osborne's austerity policies during the coalition and conservative governments in which he occupied the role of chancellor of the exchequer, are stark examples of neoliberalism at work. Margaret Thatcher installed neoliberalism into the Conservative Party immediately after she gained leadership in 1975, thereby cancelling traditional conservatism in British politics.

 

Neoiberal policy structured the financial deregulations in the US and the UK that led directly to the 2007/8 financial scandal and the bank bail-outs that followed. Anyone wondering why inequality has risen so dramatically over the last 40 years must gain a clear understanding of the techniques deployed by neoliberal economists and how they were able to capture and subvert finance in order to make sense of such a harrowing phenomenon.

 

It is also necessary to be aware that the printed press and commercial television functions as the public-facing agency of the neoliberal project, seeking to amuse, distract, misinform and entertain while the BBC continues to fail to help viewers join the dots or highlight the corruption in British politics. To make sense of neiliberalism we will have to do our own homework because no one is going to help us.

[Flanker7 20]

"And one progressive response to Brexit, even from those of us who both campaigned for Remain and who are sceptical of the overall progressive impacts of it, is to reclaim and radicalise the dominant slogan and narrative of the Leave campaign, namely ‘take back control’. This slogan demonstrated the genius of the Leave campaign. Here, as an aside, the left and any left-wing populist response must learn from its enemies in terms of articulating and communicating its ideas and objectives. Vague and abstract talk about ‘capitalism’ or ‘neoliberalism’, never mind the other terms like ‘ideology’, ‘capital’, ‘political economy’ will not work to grab people’s attention. As a recovering politician myself (coupled with the handicap of being an academic), I know real politics (or at least political communication and engagement with our fellow citizens) is neither a seminar, nor an earnest ‘political discussion’ beloved of progressive parties and movements."          . . *my bold

https://brexitblog-rosalux.eu/2019/02/10/reflections-of-a-remainer-remoaner-on-the-progressive-potentials-of-brexit/

 

A good article linked, imo.

No insult intended.

[Anna B 1,409]

On 13/03/2021 at 09:44, Flanker7 said:

"And one progressive response to Brexit, even from those of us who both campaigned for Remain and who are sceptical of the overall progressive impacts of it, is to reclaim and radicalise the dominant slogan and narrative of the Leave campaign, namely ‘take back control’. This slogan demonstrated the genius of the Leave campaign. Here, as an aside, the left and any left-wing populist response must learn from its enemies in terms of articulating and communicating its ideas and objectives. Vague and abstract talk about ‘capitalism’ or ‘neoliberalism’, never mind the other terms like ‘ideology’, ‘capital’, ‘political economy’ will not work to grab people’s attention. As a recovering politician myself (coupled with the handicap of being an academic), I know real politics (or at least political communication and engagement with our fellow citizens) is neither a seminar, nor an earnest ‘political discussion’ beloved of progressive parties and movements."          . . *my bold

https://brexitblog-rosalux.eu/2019/02/10/reflections-of-a-remainer-remoaner-on-the-progressive-potentials-of-brexit/

 

A good article linked, imo.

No insult intended.

True.

Which is why the Tories can get away with catchy slogans and 'soundbites' that appeal to the masses and, dare I say it, simple minded.

Politics are complex, as your article above illustrates, and people are easily hoodwinked unless they look a little deeper. Put a corrupt man who lies and cheats up against an honest man who plays by the rules, and the liar will win every time unless people call him out, and to do that they need to aquire knowledge and information which needs some effort on their part. 

 

If you add that to the British prevalence of unquestioning trust and reverence towards our 'Elders and Betters,' our 'Superiors,' our 'Upper classes' who have been in charge for a thousand years, and would never be so base and low as to lie or cheat us would they? And it's no wonder the Tories get elected over and over again when they really shouldn't. 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Anna B

[Arnold_Lane 0]

8 hours ago, Anna B said:

True.

Which is why the Tories can get away with catchy slogans and 'soundbites' that appeal to the masses and, dare I say it, simple minded.

Politics are complex, as your article above illustrates, and people are easily hoodwinked unless they look a little deeper. Put a corrupt man who lies and cheats up against an honest man who plays by the rules, and the liar will win every time unless people call him out, and to do that they need to aquire knowledge and information which needs some effort on their part. 

 

If you add that to the British prevalence of unquestioning trust and reverence towards our 'Elders and Betters,' our 'Superiors,' our 'Upper classes' who have been in charge for a thousand years, and would never be so base and low as to lie or cheat us would they? And it's no wonder the Tories get elected over and over again when they really shouldn't. 

 

 

 

Is "For the many, not the few" not a simple sound bite designed to appeal to "the masses?"

 

It's somewhat patronising to say those "taken in" by Tory slogans are simple mind.  Socialists will never win power whist ever they treat anyone other than themselves as either part of "The Establishment" or stupid.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Arnold_Lane

[tinfoilhat 11]

Pointless.

Edited March 15, 2021 by tinfoilhat

[RollingJ 2,017]

38 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

In other news, this bill will sail through today and it really really shouldn't.

 

BBC News - MPs call for more action on violence against women in policing bill
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56399860

 

Its a shocker. I wasn't sure whether to post it here he the "current scams" thread.

I would imagine this Bill was drawn prior to the current 'big story' - which I would agree is tragic, as is any violent death - but I also assume it has passed all previous readings, based on your comments?

 

Don't see what it's got to do with Anna's pet subject, though?

Edited March 15, 2021 by RollingJ
Added line.

[the_bloke 17]

1 hour ago, Arnold_Lane said:

It's somewhat patronising to say those "taken in" by Tory slogans are simple mind.  Socialists will never win power whist ever they treat anyone other than themselves as either part of "The Establishment" or stupid.

This. 100% this.

 

Two ways to make someone not vote for what you believe in:

 

a) Treat them like they are stupid, and you know better

b) Tell them that your vote needs to be spent on party X because party X has policies that will help a block of society that can't be bothered to vote for themselves yet not vote for party Y who has policies that makes your own life better

[tinfoilhat 11]

Pointless.

Edited March 15, 2021 by tinfoilhat

[RollingJ 2,017]

5 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Because it's a clamp down on our right to protest, as one paper put it, we're moving from nationalism to fascism. Having skimmed through some salient points and a couple of ministers come up with some half baked excuses why it's a good idea I can see why.

Yep, the whole purity of the left cost them an awful lot of votes.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to. And the left is 'pure' - you're 'avin a laff.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

48 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Because it's a clamp down on our right to protest, as one paper put it, we're moving from nationalism to fascism....

A claim that has been made earlier in this thread.  However, neoliberalism and fascism aren't all that compatible, if you think about it.  Never mind that fascism is actually National Socialism.  

 

And since when have Communist countries been all that big on their citizens' right to protest? 

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Arnold_Lane

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 hours ago, Arnold_Lane said:

A claim that has been made earlier in this thread.  However, neoliberalism and fascism aren't all that compatible, if you think about it.  Never mind that fascism is actually National Socialism.  

 

And since when have Communist countries been all that big on their citizens' right to protest? 

 

You're probably right on that. Not that right place for the post.

 

I'll delete it. Who cares right?

[tzijlstra 11]

I have some time to kill so I thought: Hmmm, let's have a look at SheffieldForum and see what folks are discussing.

 

I then read the OP's post and thought... Mary wept, what a load of nonsense. So can I be arsed to explain what liberalism actually is, or not? I decided that I have some time to kill, so I will. 

 

The philosophy of liberalism was born at a time that 'workers' were considered 'subjects'. At a time where the ruling class, the nobility, quite literally owned the rights to people. The astute amongst you will know that this was quite some time ago. Liberal philosophy is literally called 'liberal' because it's sole defining characteristic was that people should have a right to self-determinism. Not be slaves to the nobility. It led to the idea that people should be able to pursue what career/lifestyle they wanted to. 

 

The UK was pretty much the birthplace of political liberalism, the 'Tories' were opposed by the 'Liberal Party' well before the birth of the socialist Labour party. In fact, it was under Liberal prime ministers that the foundations for the British welfare state were formed in the years leading up to World War 1. Liberal voices were crucial to emancipation, suffragettes considered themselves liberal as opposed to conservative. It was the Liberal Party that first introduced the Suffrage bill to parliament. This is not something that has gone away, all too easy do the Brits forget that LGBTQ+ rights were a crucial part of the much maligned 'Coalition' of Cameron and Clegg. Liberals were responsible for finally allowing same sex marriage as late as 2013. 

 

So the notion that Liberalism is about individualism is correct. The right of ALL individuals to choose their path in life. Where the confusion comes in is when socialists claim that this right of the individual is contrary to social governance. This is enshrined in the notion that liberals are 'against large government', 'pro free market' and 'pro capitalism'.  This is largely incorrect. Liberals are not afraid of legal intervention when the market gets out of hand or more strikingly, when capitalism encroaches on the rights of individuals. Equally, liberals do not believe in a government that dictates how people should live and limits the choices available to individuals - it seeks to find a middle ground between the two.

 

Where the contrast with socialism exists is here: Socialists believe the state is paramount and indeed, has a duty to infringe on the rights of individuals on behalf of the suppressed. Hence Labour formed as a result of unionised intervention.  Also, and there is no further parallel here, so please read this carefully: national socialists (nazis) had the state as paramount to any individual's rights. They in fact took this to the extreme by philosophising that 'their state' was superior to all other states, whether communist, liberal or religious. The big difference with modern socialists is that national socialism went hand in hand with authoritarianism. 

 

Neoliberalism is a fabricated construct, fabricated by socialists AND conservatives, worried about the rise of of liberal rights. If you don't believe it is constructed as a notion, name me a single political movement in the world that labels itself as neoliberal?  There are some that identify as libertarian, this is a confused concept, almost as confused as neoliberalism, as it is seated in the modern US notion that all government is bad. Libertarians do indeed believe that capitalism will solve all issues for individuals and especially those individuals that carry arms to 'help problems go away', as such there are hardly any libertarians in Europe as Europe benefits (or benefitted...) from well organised and accountable government. 

 

Thanks.

 

So what is going on is that the 'liberal middle ground' between conservatives, who do not believe in 'progress', and socialists, who believe they are solely responsible for 'progress', is prime disputed territory - it is easier to attack the 'weak' liberals,  for whom it is more difficult to explain their philosophies and beliefs, then it is to try and convince Tories (Often emboldened in traditional religious 'rights'). 

Here is an important PS - the Liberal Democrats, in my experience, are often not very good at understanding what I described above and have lost their conviction of liberalism after a century of losing ground. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by tzijlstra