Neo-liberalism, the ideology that shackles us

[Warren Dew]

Greater longevity of Silents is preventing the crisis war from starting, drawing out the prewar crisis period. That won't change much. Enough boomers are living longer to be able to be in charge for the war. Gen X will still be there to turn Boomer concepts into practical execution. More and more Millenial footsoldiers will accumulate until the crisis war comes and draws the dividing line between Millenials and new adaptives.

The only issue is if expensive telomerase therapies actually work and cause rich Silents to live indefinitely. Then we'll live in an indefinite crisis. Oh joy.

[pbrower2a]

(11-08-2019, 01:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Greater longevity of Silents is preventing the crisis war from starting, drawing out the prewar crisis period.  That won't change much.  Enough boomers are living longer to be able to be in charge for the war.  Gen X will still be there to turn Boomer concepts into practical execution.  More and more Millenial footsoldiers will accumulate until the crisis war comes and draws the dividing line between Millenials and new adaptives.

The only issue is if expensive telomerase therapies actually work and cause rich Silents to live indefinitely.  Then we'll live in an indefinite crisis.  Oh joy.

On the other hand, another Adaptive generation will define itself after the Crisis is over. I can easily see this Crisis Era coming to an end, and it will end swiftly with the establishment of rigid norms that people break at risk of contempt, failure, or at least frustration. Life will suddenly look safe enough for indulging Boom-like (OK, maybe Missionary-like, Transcendental-like, or Awakening-like) kids. I doubt that the privacy that Boom children got in the insipid, spacious post-war tract houses will be possible again. 

It is also possible that this Crisis era ends in a muddle thanks to the extended stay of the Silent generation. In the last Crisis era there was no equivalent of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and no equivalent of Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader... let alone any Progressive equivalents of Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders running for President!It could be that the Millennial Generation becomes a Civic-Adaptive hybrid, and the kids born in the early quarter of the 21st century become an Idealist generation by default. 

The best ending that I can see for this Crisis Era is that the catastrophic failure that is the Trump Presidency ends with Americans finding and closing the seams in our political order. Maybe we decide that people not responsible to the People have much-reduced roles in the political system (dark money and corporate lobbyists).

[Anthony '58]

A nearly 27-minute video about neoliberalism - and not one mention of social, moral, and religious issues and the very real role they play?

Michael Lind pointed this role out in his twin best-sellers of the '90s - The Next American Nation and Up From Conservatism: Why The Right Is Wrong For America.  In these books, Lind introduced the concept of politics as a compass rather than a spectrum, whose four cardinal points are as follows:

Conservatism: Adhering to the conservative position on both economic and social issues.
Libertarianism: Conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues.
Left-liberalism: Adhering to the liberal position on both economic and social issues.
National liberalism: Liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues.

A classification of facebook pages using these categories would appear to be about 45% conservative, 45% left-liberal, 9% libertarian, and 1% national liberal, if even that.

But is that in effect how we are divided as a nation?

[David Horn]

(11-09-2019, 05:14 PM)Anthony Wrote: A nearly 27-minute video about neoliberalism - and not one mention of social, moral, and religious issues and the very real role they play?

Michael Lind pointed this role out in his twin best-sellers of the '90s - The Next American Nation and [I]Up From Conservatism: Why The Right Is Wrong For America[I].  In these books, Lind introduced the concept of politics as a compass rather than a spectrum, whose four cardinal points are as follows:

Conservatism: Adhering to the conservative position on both economic and social issues.
Libertarianism: Conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues.
Left-liberalism: Adhering to the liberal position on both economic and social issues.
National liberalism: Liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues.

A classification of facebook pages using these categories would appear to be about 45% conservative, 45% left-liberal, 9% libertarian, and 1% national liberal, if even that.

But is that in effect how we are divided as a nation?

I can't agree with the percentages, but the rest is spot on.

[Eric the Green]

(11-09-2019, 05:14 PM)Anthony Wrote: A nearly 27-minute video about neoliberalism - and not one mention of social, moral, and religious issues and the very real role they play?

Michael Lind pointed this role out in his twin best-sellers of the '90s - The Next American Nation and [I]Up From Conservatism: Why The Right Is Wrong For America[I].  In these books, Lind introduced the concept of politics as a compass rather than a spectrum, whose four cardinal points are as follows:

Conservatism: Adhering to the conservative position on both economic and social issues.
Libertarianism: Conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues.
Left-liberalism: Adhering to the liberal position on both economic and social issues.
National liberalism: Liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues.

A classification of facebook pages using these categories would appear to be about 45% conservative, 45% left-liberal, 9% libertarian, and 1% national liberal, if even that.

But is that in effect how we are divided as a nation?

That's the same as the Libertarian Party's version of the political compass. I agree with it.

National liberal is the opposite of libertarian, and can also be called statist. It favors the state to regulate or rule over both the economy and social/cultural matters. It's extreme form is Stalinism.

Neo-liberalism is essentially libertarianism, but the emphasis is so strong on economic issues that you can be a neo-liberal and still be either liberal or conservative on social issues. In fact, no I don't think neo-liberals give much credit to the role of religious, moral and social issues. They think: let the market operate, see to it that it operates without government restraint everywhere, and all other issues will take care of themselves. They are wrong, of course.

I think America is divided across left and right on that compass (left-liberal vs. conservative), and between red and blue, despite many people who don't think so; but many is a relative term. Those who dissent from this picture of the divide are a relatively small portion of the public, even though it's a larger portion of folks on social media.

[Eric the Green]

(11-08-2019, 01:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Greater longevity of Silents is preventing the crisis war from starting, drawing out the prewar crisis period.  That won't change much.  Enough boomers are living longer to be able to be in charge for the war.  Gen X will still be there to turn Boomer concepts into practical execution.  More and more Millenial footsoldiers will accumulate until the crisis war comes and draws the dividing line between Millenials and new adaptives.

The only issue is if expensive telomerase therapies actually work and cause rich Silents to live indefinitely.  Then we'll live in an indefinite crisis.  Oh joy.

Or an indefinite PRE-crisis, like we have now; oh joy!

[Eric the Green]

(11-08-2019, 08:16 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(11-06-2019, 09:36 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: There was a book I read some time ago that indicated that the big challenge of this century should be to rein in excessive corporate power just as excessive totalitarian state power was reined in during the last century. Think we can accomplish this before this 4T is out?

Does that book say how exactly to achieve that?

(11-07-2019, 09:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Concentration of wealth will be resolved by the crisis war, one way or another.

If the Crisis plays out as they did in the past. But what if not? It's my pet theory that longer lives have drawn out the Unraveling. (Check the threads in my sig.) If we have to wait another decade until politicians will be ready to act - will the X-ers be ready to manage, in stressful jobs? Will the Millies be ready to fight? Will the then-adult Homelanders block every big decision because they're too neurotic to stand them? And all of that because the old Silents neither die nor give up meddling with the world.

The only problem with that pet theory is that the saeculum is still right on schedule. A saeculum, archetypally, is 84-years long. The end of world war two and the JFK assassination came a bit early in the last years of their turning (the last 4T and 1T), and that means that the cycle was rounded out by a normal length 2T and an extended 3T. And we are now in 1850s redux, so we are now in a crisis that some people could call an extended unravelling, but it's right on schedule. The 4T will last until 2029. We have almost 10 years left now. A crisis war could still come; it could be smaller-scale, and it will likely be both domestic and foreign. But it will resolve whether our republic will survive, and in what form. And there will be plenty of Boomers, Xers and Millies acting out their archetypal crisis roles over the next 10 years. I'm not sure it matters much if some of those "boomers" are boomer-silent cuspers. The war babies are a powerful and brilliant sub-generation and are natural leaders. They are born under a Uranus-Neptune trine. That's why Pelosi, Sanders, Biden, McConnell, Bloomberg et al are hanging around.

[Bill the Piper]

I'm not particularly worried by neoliberalism. One thing I always have to say is that neoliberalism is simply liberalism or capitalism. The speaker seems to believe it started in the 1980s, but the truth is it exists since the 18th century. Since in America liberalism has come to mean what I call Inclusivism, I sometimes use market liberalism to remind the listener/reader that I'm thinking of its older meaning. Then market liberals' forces are dwindling, they are mostly Boomers or even Silents, who embraced it in the 80s. The doctrine is also under attack from both the Left and the Right. I cannot imagine the remnants to retain influence during the upcoming 1T.

I don't expect a revolution, but a slow decrease of market liberals' influence, as it's already been happening since 2008. Eventually money and jobs will be obsolete, and there will be no possibility of capitalism:
https://www.futuretimeline.net/23rdcentu...e-timeline

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2019, 04:54 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: I'm not particularly worried by neoliberalism. One thing I always have to say is that neoliberalism is simply liberalism or capitalism. The speaker seems to believe it started in the 1980s, but the truth is it exists since the 18th century. Since in America liberalism has come to mean what I call Inclusivism, I sometimes use market liberalism to remind the listener/reader that I'm thinking of its older meaning. Then market liberals' forces are dwindling, they are mostly Boomers or even Silents, who embraced it in the 80s. The doctrine is also under attack from both the Left and the Right. I cannot imagine the remnants to retain influence during the upcoming 1T.

I don't expect a revolution, but a slow decrease of market liberals' influence, as it's already been happening since 2008. Eventually money and jobs will be obsolete, and there will be no possibility of capitalism:
https://www.futuretimeline.net/23rdcentu...e-timeline

That's somewhat true. Neo-liberalism is classical liberalism from the 18th century, but with neo or new elements. It basically is only concerned with "economic freedom" and the classical liberal concerns about human rights and consent of the governed are incidental. And whereas classical liberalism was laissez faire, allowing business to operate without government interference or support, neo-liberalism advocates and carries out deliberate interference at home and abroad in order to ensure that government does not interfere in the market.

It is the chief problem to be concerned about, far more than any Arab terrorism and anti-Israeli scheme or any green excesses. Neo-liberalism allows business to concentrate and create an oligarchy. It has nothing to do with freedom, because it allows corporations to control the world. It hamstrings any attempt by the government to regulate and apply correctives to misconduct by business. It is extremely utopian and unrealistic, and tries to convince us that businessmen are altruistic and will always do the right thing, and the market will decide policies correctly. But humans are still greedy and fearful, and none more than big businessmen (and it's still mostly men; neo-liberalism has no interest in equality or social issues; in fact neo-liberalism is predominantly racist and misogynist, because it condemns and blames those who seek welfare, which are often the poorer groups in society). It is something to be concerned about, for sure.

What is decreasing in influence will be the neo-liberal memes and slogans. If work is no longer needed because robots do most of it, then where is the exaggerated veneration of work, and condemnation of those who seek income support from the government? If a few neo-liberal tycoons own all the robots, why should they be entitled to all the benefits of technology; which was supposed to save labor, not make everyone except them poor. And if the masses have no jobs and no money to buy the neo-liberals' products, what becomes of their business and their income anyway?

I do think that neo-liberalism exists on borrowed time. But right now they control the strings at a crucial time when the planet is warming, gun violence is mounting, and inequality and national debts are still mushrooming. Since 2010 neo-liberal rule has increased, not decreased, in the USA and worldwide, and the Neo-liberal-in-Chief in the White House is still pushing the ideology as if there's no tomorrow.

Also, if the economy recovers well over a given period and inequality decreases, including for ethnic groups and women, then neo-liberalism could become tempting again. It's an attractive doctrine, because ideally we should not need the government to tell people what to do. But when will this ideal be practical? Given our current conduct, I think it's going to be a pretty long while.

[Marypoza]

(11-16-2019, 04:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 04:54 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: I'm not particularly worried by neoliberalism. One thing I always have to say is that neoliberalism is simply liberalism or capitalism. The speaker seems to believe it started in the 1980s, but the truth is it exists since the 18th century. Since in America liberalism has come to mean what I call Inclusivism, I sometimes use market liberalism to remind the listener/reader that I'm thinking of its older meaning. Then market liberals' forces are dwindling, they are mostly Boomers or even Silents, who embraced it in the 80s. The doctrine is also under attack from both the Left and the Right. I cannot imagine the remnants to retain influence during the upcoming 1T.

I don't expect a revolution, but a slow decrease of market liberals' influence, as it's already been happening since 2008. Eventually money and jobs will be obsolete, and there will be no possibility of capitalism:
https://www.futuretimeline.net/23rdcentu...e-timeline

That's somewhat true. Neo-liberalism is classical liberalism from the 18th century, but with neo or new elements. It basically is only concerned with "economic freedom" and the classical liberal concerns about human rights and consent of the governed are incidental. And whereas classical liberalism was laissez faire, allowing business to operate without government interference or support, neo-liberalism advocates and carries out deliberate interference at home and abroad in order to ensure that government does not interfere in the market.

It is the chief problem to be concerned about, far more than any Arab terrorism and anti-Israeli scheme or any green excesses. Neo-liberalism allows business to concentrate and create an oligarchy. It has nothing to do with freedom, because it allows corporations to control the world. It hamstrings any attempt by the government to regulate and apply correctives to misconduct by business. It is extremely utopian and unrealistic, and tries to convince us that businessmen are altruistic and will always do the right thing, and the market will decide policies correctly. But humans are still greedy and fearful, and none more than big businessmen (and it's still mostly men; neo-liberalism has no interest in equality or social issues; in fact neo-liberalism is predominantly racist and misogynist, because it condemns and blames those who seek welfare, which are often the poorer groups in society). It is something to be concerned about, for sure.

What is decreasing in influence will be the neo-liberal memes and slogans. If work is no longer needed because robots do most of it, then where is the exaggerated veneration of work, and condemnation of those who seek income support from the government? If a few neo-liberal tycoons own all the robots, why should they be entitled to all the benefits of technology; which was supposed to save labor, not make everyone except them poor. And if the masses have no jobs and no money to buy the neo-liberals' products, what becomes of their business and their income anyway?

I do think that neo-liberalism exists on borrowed time. But right now they control the strings at a crucial time when the planet is warming, gun violence is mounting, and inequality and national debts are still mushrooming. Since 2010 neo-liberal rule has increased, not decreased, in the USA and worldwide, and the Neo-liberal-in-Chief in the White House is still pushing the ideology as if there's no tomorrow.

Also, if the economy recovers well over a given period and inequality decreases, including for ethnic groups and women, then neo-liberalism could become tempting again. It's an attractive doctrine, because ideally we should not need the government to tell people what to do. But when will this ideal be practical? Given our current conduct, I think it's going to be a pretty long while.

-- this is why we need 2 vote Bernie next year. Should of done it in 2016

Ps Eric your paragraph about neolibturdism & corporations controlling the world- that's actually fascism according 2 Mussolini. Fascism has nothing 2 do with killing Jews or beating up gypsies & gays. That's antisemitism, racism, & homophobia respectively. Fascism is government of the corporations, by the corporations, & 4 the corporations. Ok I'm paraphrasing here but that's basically what Mussolini said

[sbarrera]

(11-08-2019, 09:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 01:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Greater longevity of Silents is preventing the crisis war from starting, drawing out the prewar crisis period.  That won't change much.  Enough boomers are living longer to be able to be in charge for the war.  Gen X will still be there to turn Boomer concepts into practical execution.  More and more Millenial footsoldiers will accumulate until the crisis war comes and draws the dividing line between Millenials and new adaptives.

The only issue is if expensive telomerase therapies actually work and cause rich Silents to live indefinitely.  Then we'll live in an indefinite crisis.  Oh joy.

On the other hand, another Adaptive generation will define itself after the Crisis is over. I can easily see this Crisis Era coming to an end, and it will end swiftly with the establishment of rigid norms that people break at risk of contempt, failure, or at least frustration. <...

...>

We're already at this point, with the way that misogyny, racism and homophobia are punished on social media. Even a hint of wrongdoing can ruin a person's life.

[pbrower2a]

(11-17-2019, 09:52 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 09:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 01:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Greater longevity of Silents is preventing the crisis war from starting, drawing out the prewar crisis period.  That won't change much.  Enough boomers are living longer to be able to be in charge for the war.  Gen X will still be there to turn Boomer concepts into practical execution.  More and more Millenial footsoldiers will accumulate until the crisis war comes and draws the dividing line between Millenials and new adaptives.

The only issue is if expensive telomerase therapies actually work and cause rich Silents to live indefinitely.  Then we'll live in an indefinite crisis.  Oh joy.

On the other hand, another Adaptive generation will define itself after the Crisis is over. I can easily see this Crisis Era coming to an end, and it will end swiftly with the establishment of rigid norms that people break at risk of contempt, failure, or at least frustration. <...

...>

We're already at this point, with the way that misogyny, racism and homophobia are punished on social media. Even a hint of wrongdoing can ruin a person's life.

The social media know that they must sanitize themselves if parents are to allow kids access to specific outlets.  Obviously the bilge that emanates from the President is a great national shame... but you can count on this: the potty-mouth shock-jock so much a part of the 3T and 4T is on the fade. Will there be a replacement for Rush Limbaugh similarly rude and offensive? Not if one wants a teen audience that can grow up with him (or her). Teen audiences will be important in a prosperous 1T as revenue sources for performers. 

There will be much that parents will want to shield their kids from, not all of it profanity, misogyny, pornography, and extremism.  Bumping and grinding in popular music might have been tolerated among blacks (but not whites!) in popular music in the 1950's -- but we can reasonably certain to reject that double standard  by rejecting it for all. The black bourgeoisie is much larger now than it was in the 1940's, and it will protect its children as ferociously as any other segment of the population. Bumping and grinding will not be on media accessible to teens. The Lost and GI's were not going to let mass culture be a revival of the burlesque show that they might have remembered. Juvenile delinquency will be an anathema in all subcultures  except in families involved in organized crime. Parents might want to shield their kids from young-earth creationism, the Gospel of Wealth, and anti-vaxxer crankery as well as against neo-Nazism, Communism, Ku Kluxism, and Islamofascism. Nobody wants his kids going to prison or even being shut out from the world of prosperous consumerism. If the late George Carlin could have a spoof of "Seven Words That You Cannot Say On the Radio" that defangs them by taking them out of context, then there will be words that we will be unable to put on the Web. Rhyming words will include trigger, bike, pink, snap, and spook.  

Americans will even expect lesser violence in sports -- even in American football. Thug behavior will lead to suspensions. If one plays hockey (which will be less lily-white) one will not get a career as an "enforcer". The basketball play of Shaquille O'Neill on defense in which he situates him in a position to attack anyone who tries to make a lay-up will be no more. I expect the rules about throwing pitches at a batter's head in baseball to go from "no harm, no foul" (the batter ducks, the catcher catches the ball, and it is only a ball) to something that can hurt the pitcher's team even if the batter is not hit. (My suggestion: any runner on base gets to advance one base on a wild pitch, and if nobody is on base, then the batter gets sent to second base.  The batter forfeits such if he charges the mound, also a dangerous deed).

The 1T will be prissy compared to what preceded and what will follow. There will be no problems with technology as such as seven-story buildings (in Kansas City in 1907), telephones, "twenty gas buggies goin' by theirselves", and enclosed toilets in 1907 as "Will Parker" introduced them to a rapt audience in Oklahoma!   





The "Burly-Queue" so much a part of American life in 1907 (near a cusp between a 2T and a 3T) did not get a revival in the last 1T, and its equivalent circa 1985 (the so-called "Gentleman's Club" or "Nudie Bar") won't. If they aren't shut down for 'morals' charges, then they will be marginalized.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2019, 05:10 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 04:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 04:54 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: I'm not particularly worried by neoliberalism. One thing I always have to say is that neoliberalism is simply liberalism or capitalism. The speaker seems to believe it started in the 1980s, but the truth is it exists since the 18th century. Since in America liberalism has come to mean what I call Inclusivism, I sometimes use market liberalism to remind the listener/reader that I'm thinking of its older meaning. Then market liberals' forces are dwindling, they are mostly Boomers or even Silents, who embraced it in the 80s. The doctrine is also under attack from both the Left and the Right. I cannot imagine the remnants to retain influence during the upcoming 1T.

I don't expect a revolution, but a slow decrease of market liberals' influence, as it's already been happening since 2008. Eventually money and jobs will be obsolete, and there will be no possibility of capitalism:
https://www.futuretimeline.net/23rdcentu...e-timeline

That's somewhat true. Neo-liberalism is classical liberalism from the 18th century, but with neo or new elements. It basically is only concerned with "economic freedom" and the classical liberal concerns about human rights and consent of the governed are incidental. And whereas classical liberalism was laissez faire, allowing business to operate without government interference or support, neo-liberalism advocates and carries out deliberate interference at home and abroad in order to ensure that government does not interfere in the market.

It is the chief problem to be concerned about, far more than any Arab terrorism and anti-Israeli scheme or any green excesses. Neo-liberalism allows business to concentrate and create an oligarchy. It has nothing to do with freedom, because it allows corporations to control the world. It hamstrings any attempt by the government to regulate and apply correctives to misconduct by business. It is extremely utopian and unrealistic, and tries to convince us that businessmen are altruistic and will always do the right thing, and the market will decide policies correctly. But humans are still greedy and fearful, and none more than big businessmen (and it's still mostly men; neo-liberalism has no interest in equality or social issues; in fact neo-liberalism is predominantly racist and misogynist, because it condemns and blames those who seek welfare, which are often the poorer groups in society). It is something to be concerned about, for sure.

What is decreasing in influence will be the neo-liberal memes and slogans. If work is no longer needed because robots do most of it, then where is the exaggerated veneration of work, and condemnation of those who seek income support from the government? If a few neo-liberal tycoons own all the robots, why should they be entitled to all the benefits of technology; which was supposed to save labor, not make everyone except them poor. And if the masses have no jobs and no money to buy the neo-liberals' products, what becomes of their business and their income anyway?

I do think that neo-liberalism exists on borrowed time. But right now they control the strings at a crucial time when the planet is warming, gun violence is mounting, and inequality and national debts are still mushrooming. Since 2010 neo-liberal rule has increased, not decreased, in the USA and worldwide, and the Neo-liberal-in-Chief in the White House is still pushing the ideology as if there's no tomorrow.

Also, if the economy recovers well over a given period and inequality decreases, including for ethnic groups and women, then neo-liberalism could become tempting again. It's an attractive doctrine, because ideally we should not need the government to tell people what to do. But when will this ideal be practical? Given our current conduct, I think it's going to be a pretty long while.

-- this is why we need 2 vote Bernie next year. Should of done it in 2016

Ps Eric your paragraph about neolibturdism & corporations controlling the world- that's actually fascism according 2 Mussolini. Fascism has nothing 2 do with killing Jews or beating up gypsies & gays. That's antisemitism, racism, & homophobia  respectively. Fascism is government of the corporations, by the corporations, & 4 the corporations. Ok I'm paraphrasing here but that's basically what Mussolini said

I agree. Although fascist regimes also partake of "antisemitism, racism, & homophobia" as well, or at least some of these and other kinds of social conservatism and nationalism. It is a better and more appealing source of popular support for fascists than corporations are.

Neolibturdism is not specifically racist in its ideology, necessarily, but it tends to become allies with racism because it appeals so strongly to those who resent giving "their" tax money for welfare and social programs to "those people" (you know, those people who don't work and are dependent on government; you know, those people..... ). That meme is the primary support for the power of neo-liberalism in the USA. That's why southern and other redneck states vote for it.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-16-2019, 04:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Since 2010 neo-liberal rule has increased, not decreased, in the USA and worldwide, and the Neo-liberal-in-Chief in the White House is still pushing the ideology as if there's no tomorrow.

You're talking as if the Obama age never happened 

A good article:
https://narrativeinitiative.org/blog/neo...eplace-it/

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2019, 04:09 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 04:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Since 2010 neo-liberal rule has increased, not decreased, in the USA and worldwide, and the Neo-liberal-in-Chief in the White House is still pushing the ideology as if there's no tomorrow.

You're talking as if the Obama age never happened 

It didn't. It was in power for 7 months, and the Democrats stalled and stalled and adopted watered down measures, and then the Republicans took over on Nov.2, 2010 and gerrymandered the hell out of everything and took over everything. Obama was powerless after that. There was no such Obama age. The Neo-liberal Tea Party was in power, and then it became the Trump base without any break.

[Marypoza]

(11-18-2019, 03:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 05:10 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 04:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 04:54 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: I'm not particularly worried by neoliberalism. One thing I always have to say is that neoliberalism is simply liberalism or capitalism. The speaker seems to believe it started in the 1980s, but the truth is it exists since the 18th century. Since in America liberalism has come to mean what I call Inclusivism, I sometimes use market liberalism to remind the listener/reader that I'm thinking of its older meaning. Then market liberals' forces are dwindling, they are mostly Boomers or even Silents, who embraced it in the 80s. The doctrine is also under attack from both the Left and the Right. I cannot imagine the remnants to retain influence during the upcoming 1T.

I don't expect a revolution, but a slow decrease of market liberals' influence, as it's already been happening since 2008. Eventually money and jobs will be obsolete, and there will be no possibility of capitalism:
https://www.futuretimeline.net/23rdcentu...e-timeline

That's somewhat true. Neo-liberalism is classical liberalism from the 18th century, but with neo or new elements. It basically is only concerned with "economic freedom" and the classical liberal concerns about human rights and consent of the governed are incidental. And whereas classical liberalism was laissez faire, allowing business to operate without government interference or support, neo-liberalism advocates and carries out deliberate interference at home and abroad in order to ensure that government does not interfere in the market.

It is the chief problem to be concerned about, far more than any Arab terrorism and anti-Israeli scheme or any green excesses. Neo-liberalism allows business to concentrate and create an oligarchy. It has nothing to do with freedom, because it allows corporations to control the world. It hamstrings any attempt by the government to regulate and apply correctives to misconduct by business. It is extremely utopian and unrealistic, and tries to convince us that businessmen are altruistic and will always do the right thing, and the market will decide policies correctly. But humans are still greedy and fearful, and none more than big businessmen (and it's still mostly men; neo-liberalism has no interest in equality or social issues; in fact neo-liberalism is predominantly racist and misogynist, because it condemns and blames those who seek welfare, which are often the poorer groups in society). It is something to be concerned about, for sure.

What is decreasing in influence will be the neo-liberal memes and slogans. If work is no longer needed because robots do most of it, then where is the exaggerated veneration of work, and condemnation of those who seek income support from the government? If a few neo-liberal tycoons own all the robots, why should they be entitled to all the benefits of technology; which was supposed to save labor, not make everyone except them poor. And if the masses have no jobs and no money to buy the neo-liberals' products, what becomes of their business and their income anyway?

I do think that neo-liberalism exists on borrowed time. But right now they control the strings at a crucial time when the planet is warming, gun violence is mounting, and inequality and national debts are still mushrooming. Since 2010 neo-liberal rule has increased, not decreased, in the USA and worldwide, and the Neo-liberal-in-Chief in the White House is still pushing the ideology as if there's no tomorrow.

Also, if the economy recovers well over a given period and inequality decreases, including for ethnic groups and women, then neo-liberalism could become tempting again. It's an attractive doctrine, because ideally we should not need the government to tell people what to do. But when will this ideal be practical? Given our current conduct, I think it's going to be a pretty long while.

-- this is why we need 2 vote Bernie next year. Should of done it in 2016

Ps Eric your paragraph about neolibturdism & corporations controlling the world- that's actually fascism according 2 Mussolini. Fascism has nothing 2 do with killing Jews or beating up gypsies & gays. That's antisemitism, racism, & homophobia  respectively. Fascism is government of the corporations, by the corporations, & 4 the corporations. Ok I'm paraphrasing here but that's basically what Mussolini said

I agree. Although fascist regimes also partake of "antisemitism, racism, & homophobia" as well, or at least some of these and other kinds of social conservatism and nationalism. It is a better and more appealing source of popular support for fascists than corporations are.

Neolibturdism is not specifically racist in its ideology, necessarily, but it tends to become allies with racism because it appeals so strongly to those who resent giving "their" tax money for welfare and social programs to "those people" (you know, those people who don't work and are dependent on government; you know, those people..... ). That meme is the primary support for the power of neo-liberalism in the USA. That's why southern and other redneck states vote for it.

-- yeah Fascism/neolibturdism needs a scapegoat. These days the antisemitism is directed @ the other Semites- Muslims & Arabs in general. Homophobia is still present (but @ least not rampant) & the racism directed @ Latinos.

[Hintergrund]

(11-17-2019, 09:52 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 09:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 01:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Greater longevity of Silents is preventing the crisis war from starting, drawing out the prewar crisis period.  That won't change much.  Enough boomers are living longer to be able to be in charge for the war.  Gen X will still be there to turn Boomer concepts into practical execution.  More and more Millenial footsoldiers will accumulate until the crisis war comes and draws the dividing line between Millenials and new adaptives.

The only issue is if expensive telomerase therapies actually work and cause rich Silents to live indefinitely.  Then we'll live in an indefinite crisis.  Oh joy.

On the other hand, another Adaptive generation will define itself after the Crisis is over. I can easily see this Crisis Era coming to an end, and it will end swiftly with the establishment of rigid norms that people break at risk of contempt, failure, or at least frustration. <...

...>

We're already at this point, with the way that misogyny, racism and homophobia are punished on social media. Even a hint of wrongdoing can ruin a person's life.

OTOH, sometimes the radical left acts like a circular firing squad. Google it, it's fun.

[Anthony '58]

(11-01-2019, 05:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That's a long time without fur.

It's ironic to see Eric the Red start this thread when the biggest proponent of neoconservatism in recent memory was Hillary Clinton, and the biggest proponents of neoliberalism were her donors.

In all fairness to Eric the Blue - which is what his moniker should be, at least since 2000 - is that, despite their seeming to be opposites, neoconservatism and neoliberalism substantially overlap, in that many if not most neoconartists, which is what I call them, do not harbor right-wing views on abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc.

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2019, 05:52 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-01-2019, 05:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That's a long time without fur.

It's ironic to see Eric the Red start this thread when the biggest proponent of neoconservatism in recent memory was Hillary Clinton, and the biggest proponents of neoliberalism were her donors.

In all fairness to Eric the Blue - which is what his moniker should be, at least since 2000 - is that, despite their seeming to be opposites, neoconservatism and neoliberalism substantially overlap, in that many if not most neoconartists, which is what I call them, do not harbor right-wing views on abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc.

I am still a registered Green, and I voted that way through the year 2012, although I obviously prefer Democrats to Republicans. I might become a Democrat again soon. I don't know for how long. I resonate strongly with the 10 key values of the Green Party. But leftists and greens at this point are getting crazier and I don't always see eye to eye with them as I did back in 2000.

But what you say may be true. They can be moderate, at least, on such social identity issues. In practice these days, all shades of conservatism including social conservatism and including neo-liberals are mostly lining up behind Trump, and Trump is doing their bidding.

[David Horn]

(11-19-2019, 12:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 05:52 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-01-2019, 05:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That's a long time without fur.

It's ironic to see Eric the Red start this thread when the biggest proponent of neoconservatism in recent memory was Hillary Clinton, and the biggest proponents of neoliberalism were her donors.

In all fairness to Eric the Blue - which is what his moniker should be, at least since 2000 - is that, despite their seeming to be opposites, neoconservatism and neoliberalism substantially overlap, in that many if not most neoconartists, which is what I call them, do not harbor right-wing views on abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc.

I am still a registered Green, and I voted that way through the year 2012, although I obviously prefer Democrats to Republicans. I might become a Democrat again soon. I don't know for how long. I resonate strongly with the 10 key values of the Green Party. But leftists and greens at this point are getting crazier and I don't always see eye to eye with them as I did back in 2000.

But what you say may be true. They can be moderate, at least, on such social identity issues. In practice these days, all shades of conservatism including social conservatism and including neo-liberals are mostly lining up behind Trump, and Trump is doing their bidding.

Both neo-movements are essentially pro-oligarch and only differ a bit in the area of foreign policy and, to a much lesser degree, on how much sucking-up to economic power should be expected.  Reagan and Clinton were the co-architects, with GWB and BHO differing only in small degree.  When this changes, as it must, it will truly start a new cycle.  The question of the day: who and how?  That's still TBD, in my opinion.  A counter movement simply doesn't exist -- to any real extent at least.  A fire-breathing POTUS can't do it alone, and fire-breathers with any chance of winning are in short supply.  EW is the closest.  If she wins, let's hope she grows into the job. 

Still, where are the ground troops?  The House has a few, but the Senate is still a GOP stronghold, with little chance that will change.