Well-said. Neoliberalism is capitalism on steroids. And just like actual steroids, it creates a collective action problem and enshittification for all, and it ultimately backfires on the "juicers" as well.
I'd prefer going to Bill Michell and Philip Mirowski. Neoliberalism intellectually started with Mont Pelerin and the Think Tank-–university complexes they developed. You can trace all the crud back to them. It was ostensibly an attempt to never have Nazi's rise ever again. A decent motive. But motives are only ethical when based on truth. They understood macroeconomics completely backwards, since proto-neolioberalism (aka. austerity politics) under German's Ch. Brüning was the fuel for the Nazis.
Indeed, austerity is ultimately the mother of fascism. Austerity causes the initial necrosis in the body politic, which then calls for fascism to "cure" it. And of course, sometimes you get both austerity AND fascism together, or as I like to call it, "necrotizing fascism". (A pun on "necrotizing fasciitis", aka flesh-eating disease)
Yes, but neoliberalism is also used to excuse greed and corruption, deracination and atomization of both individual and community; the only thing of value, therefore allowed to be of influence, is money in such as the price of stock. Margaret Thatcher's quote " ...you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." is a neoliberal statement.
The value of a relationship, of friends, even of family, of an education becomes strictly monetary.
I see those as associates of neoliberalism. One might tend to think this way to argue effectively for neoliberals policy. But what matters is the *function* of neoliberalism, what it creates. It is this more unequal word where financial markets can grow without bound that is the world neoliberalism creates. What it is ultimately about. In the end it is about status and the ability to dominate others.
Well-said. Neoliberalism is capitalism on steroids. And just like actual steroids, it creates a collective action problem and enshittification for all, and it ultimately backfires on the "juicers" as well.
I'd prefer going to Bill Michell and Philip Mirowski. Neoliberalism intellectually started with Mont Pelerin and the Think Tank-–university complexes they developed. You can trace all the crud back to them. It was ostensibly an attempt to never have Nazi's rise ever again. A decent motive. But motives are only ethical when based on truth. They understood macroeconomics completely backwards, since proto-neolioberalism (aka. austerity politics) under German's Ch. Brüning was the fuel for the Nazis.
Indeed, austerity is ultimately the mother of fascism. Austerity causes the initial necrosis in the body politic, which then calls for fascism to "cure" it. And of course, sometimes you get both austerity AND fascism together, or as I like to call it, "necrotizing fascism". (A pun on "necrotizing fasciitis", aka flesh-eating disease)
Yes, but neoliberalism is also used to excuse greed and corruption, deracination and atomization of both individual and community; the only thing of value, therefore allowed to be of influence, is money in such as the price of stock. Margaret Thatcher's quote " ...you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." is a neoliberal statement.
The value of a relationship, of friends, even of family, of an education becomes strictly monetary.
Indeed, well-said.
I see those as associates of neoliberalism. One might tend to think this way to argue effectively for neoliberals policy. But what matters is the *function* of neoliberalism, what it creates. It is this more unequal word where financial markets can grow without bound that is the world neoliberalism creates. What it is ultimately about. In the end it is about status and the ability to dominate others.
Indeed. It is ultimately about *libido dominandi*, the desire to dominate.