What is Neoliberalism?
It is a political-economic, pro-capitalist and anti-scientist doctrine, inspired mainly by the theories of Friedrich Von Hayek and Milton Friedman, which raises faith in market movements as a paramount factor of progress.
The original concept was coined by German economist Alexander Rüstow in 1938, posing a kind of ′′ third way ′′ or a ′′ road between classic liberalism and Socialism. This after the failures of economic liberalism, which revealed the Great Depression and the economic collapse experienced in the early 1930. s. It exposed a social market economy, with state regulations.
Over the decades, the concept was mutating the meaning, until in the 80 s and precisely Chile, neoliberal experimental policies, driven by the Chicago boys, were implemented - Friedman's disciples. The term was transformed into a radicalized ultranza defense of laissez-faire and capitalism in general, diminishing the power of the state.
In practice, neoliberalism involves the privatization of state companies, deregulation of markets, dismantling national borders and opening up to globalization. Its justification of monopolies and oligopolies is usually criticized, taking powers from public authorities, to curb the abuses and errors of the unplanned liberal economic system, resulting in a kind of scam that favors plutocracies, increasing without parameters the indices of social inequality, the culture of irrational consumption and neo-slave indebtedness.
The adoption of neoliberal policies and acceptance of their economic theory since the 1970 s by most developed countries are seen by many economists as the cause of the collapse of the international financial system of 2007 and 2008 that later manifested in the so-called ′′ Great Recession ". Recently studied the new failure of neoliberalism in Chile, where a social outbreak of large proportions originated, such as a resistance against political and economic corruption, the government incompetence and model injustice, among other factors.
Original text below:
¿Qué es el Neoliberalismo?
Es una doctrina político-económica, pro-capitalista y anti-científica, inspirada principalmente en las teorías de Friedrich Von Hayek y Milton Friedman, que plantea la fe en los movimientos del mercado como factor primordial de progreso.
El concepto original fue acuñado por el economista alemán Alexander Rüstow en 1938, planteando una especie de "tercer camino" o un "camino entre medias" entre el liberalismo clásico y el Socialismo. Esto tras los fracasos del liberalismo económico, que dejó en evidencia la Gran Depresión y el hundimiento económico vivido en los primeros años de la década de 1930. Expuso una economía social de mercado, con regulaciones estatales.
En el transcurso de las décadas, el concepto fue mutando el significado, hasta que en los años 80 y precisamente en Chile, se aplicaron políticas experimentales neoliberales, impulsadas por los Chicago boys, -discípulos de Friedman- . El término se transformó en una radicalizada defensa a ultranza del laissez-faire y el capitalismo en general, disminuyendo el poder del Estado.
En la práctica, el neoliberalismo implica la privatización de empresas estatales, la desregulación de los mercados, la desarticulación de las fronteras nacionales y la apertura a la globalización. Se suele criticar su justificación de los monopolios y los oligopolios, arrebatándole facultades a los poderes públicos, para frenar los abusos y errores del sistema económico liberal no-planificado, resultando una especie de timo que favorece a las plutocracias, aumentando sin parámetros los indices de desigualdad social, la cultura del consumo irracional y el endeudamiento neo-esclavista.
La adopción de las políticas neoliberales y la aceptación de su teoría económica desde la década de 1970 por la mayoría de los países desarrollados se ven, por parte de muchos economistas, como la causa del hundimiento del sistema financiero internacional del año 2007 y 2008 que más tarde se manifestó en la llamada "Gran Recesión". Recientemente se estudia el nuevo fracaso del neoliberalismo en Chile, donde se originó un estallido social de grandes proporciones, como una resistencia contra la corrupción política y económica, la incompetencia del gobierno y la injusticia del modelo, entre otros factores.
- Círculo Patriótico de Estudios Chilenos e Indoamericanos
.............................
A part of the left seems to have forgotten the concept of “lumpenproletariat” developed by Karl Marx which accurately characterizes these criminals who primarily attack the workers. The “lumpenproletariat” describes this fringe of the proletariat that has dropped out of the popular classes and where we find thugs, petty criminals – all these people who no longer have class consciousness, who are immoral, poorly educated, and individualist. They are the objective allies of the capitalist oligarchy as they copy, on their scale, its ethos: violent predation, they are for themselves and against others. Ridding themselves of this lumpenproletariat also concerns the popular classes, a task normally assigned to the left. But the contemporary left seems incapable of even considering the subject [...] The impunity of this new “lumpenproletariat” also echoes the impunity of the most powerful in our society which is disintegrating at both ends. In our Republic there are no-go zones and we must take the bull by the horns one day before it totally dengenerates – from below and from above […]
The problem is a large part of the left very rarely speaks about insecurity, without realizing that the first victims of insecurity are the popular classes, whether they are immigrants or not. But security is the first freedom. The fight against this unbearable criminality is capable of bringing us together beyond all identity politics, beyond ethnic origins and religions: the majority of French people, whatever their origins, desire to live in peace and not fear the petty thugs to whom the government has abandoned the neighborhoods and their inhabitants.
The right, for the last forty years, has passionately defended neoliberal policies and the demands of the European Union to reduce the financing of public services; it is often swaddled in the most complacent Atlanticism forgetting what accompanies economic neoliberalism and American identity politics, fanatical individualism which has nothing to do with others and society and is also the fertile ground on which this barbarous criminality flourishes.
- Djordje Kuzmanovic, interviewed by RT France July 16th
...............................
The deep cause of political correctness actually resides in what one could call the metaphysics of subjectivity, which is one of the keystones of modernity. Descartes is its great ancestor: “I think, therefore I am.” I, I. In more contemporary terms: me, me. The truth is no longer external to myself, it is conflated with it. Society must respect me, it must ban anything that could offend me, humiliate me, shock or bruise my ego. Others must not decide for me what I am, except to make me a victim. Apparently, I am a white man with a thick beard, but if I decided that I am a transitioning black lesbian, that's what one must consider me. I was born sixty years ago, but if I attribute myself the characteristics of a 40 year old man, that's how the civil state should register me. Basically, I alone have the right to speak for myself. Thus the narcissism of resentment feeds itself.
..
The third new fact is that censorship is no longer principally done by public powers, but big media. In the past, the demands for censorship principally emanated from the state, the press flattered itself to play the role of counter-power. All that has changed. Not only has the media nearly abandoned any tendency to resist the dominant ideology, but it is its principal vector.
Newspapers, televisions, political parties: for thirty years, all say more or less the same thing because they all reason within the same circle of thought. Pensée unique is all the more ominpresent in the media as it exercises itself within a micro-milieu where everybody has the same references (economic values and “human rights”), where everyone is familiar with each other and calls each other by their first name, where the same incestuous relationships unite journalists, politicians, and show-business. Its proof is that, on a certain number of key issues, 80% of them think exactly the opposite of what 80% of French people think. The result is that the media system is increasingly discredited. And the majority of debates we witness no longer deserve this name. Philippe Muray already said, “The field of what is no longer debatable never ceases to expand.” Frédéric Taddeï confirmed on France Inter in September 2018, “the problem is that you no longer have real debate on French television and that doesn't seem to bother any journalist.” Likewise, according to the fortunate expression of Jean-Pierre Garnier and Louis Janover, the engaged intellectual has ceded his place to the intellectual for hire: “The 'three Cs' that defined his mission in the past – critique, contest, combat – have been replaced with the 'three As' that summarize his resignation today: accept, approve, applaud
..
The old morality prescribed individual rules of behavior: society was supposed to function better if the individuals who composed it acted so. The new morality wants to moralize society itself, without imposing rules on individuals. The old morality told people what they must do, the new morality describes what society must become. It's not longer individuals who must behave better, but society that must be rendered more “just.” The old morality was ruled by the good, while the new is ruled by the just. The good asserts the ethic of virtues, the just a conception of “justice” itself colored with a strong moral impregnation. Founded on subjective rights that individuals would draw from the state of nature, the ideology of human rights, having become the civil religion of our time, is before all a moral doctrine too. Modern societies are both ultrapermissive and hyper-moral.
- Alain de Benoist
..............................
Fears that the international language of money will speak more loudly than local dialects inspire the reassertion of ethnic particularism in Europe, while the decline of the nation-state weakens the only authority capable of holding ethnic rivalries in check. The revival of tribalism, in turn, reinforces a reactive cosmopolitanism among elites. [...] The denationalization of business enterprise tends to produce a class of cosmopolitans who see themselves as "world citizens, but without accepting…any of the obligations that citizenship in a polity normally implies." But the cosmopolitanism of the favored few, because it is uninformed by the practice of citizenship, turns out to be a higher form of parochialism. Instead of supporting public services, the new elites put their money into the improvement of their own self-enclosed enclaves.
- Christopher Lasch
..................................
The chance of having a left wing government was destroyed from within the Labour party, both deliberately and out of sheer ignorance. It wasn’t so much that the Tories won, it was because Labour lost big time, lost the plot. And the main issue was democracy/Brexit, FACT: no socialist would contemplate supporting a right wing, pro privatisation, pro capitalist, undemocratic political monster such as the E.U. but the labour membership is made up of mostly Liberals who had/have a blind almost religious belief that the E.U. is the best thing since sliced bread.
I would say Corbyn and his cohorts, Abbot, McDonnell and the pro E.U. momentum gang have enabled the situation we are now in with another Tory Blairite running it, they blew their chance big time, even with the massive support they had, and after a decade of Tory austerity it should have been a walk in the park. These so called left wing people of principles ignored democracy and ignored its traditional working class voters who overwhelmingly and rightly voted to leave the E.U. Labour is obsessed with its membership, it’s not the membership that puts you in government its VOTERS!
Not only this but many in the Westminster bubble and of course many of its Liberal campaigners, supporters looked down their noses at the working class who were too thick and ignorant to see just how wonderful and what a force for good the E.U. is NOT! I heard one campaigner on the streets of Leeds saying she was incredulous, she “couldn’t get through” to these deplorables who voted OUT, most working class people who voted OUT are decent people, not ignorant, flag waving, xenophobic little Englanders as portrayed by the pro E.U. media and repeated by these Liberal Clowns.
Whoever came up with that contradictory, ridiculous Brexit policy of “getting a better deal” with the E.U. and then holding a second referendum on it, in which they would campaign against their imaginary better deal and campaign to remain (to please its Liberal membership and its Tory Blairite MP’s) should be hanging their heads in shame, I don’t know how they can show their faces in public!
Maybe they thought the electorate are so thick they would buy it! The E.U. doesn’t do deals, it’s a dictatorship! The E.U. wants the worst deal possible for the U.K. lest any others have the audacity to exercise their democratic right. Corbyn should have stuck to his life long ideology and backed the Leave campaign, he should have defended the right to criticise the Israeli apartheid regime, he should have defended Chris Williamson against FALSE allegations of anti-Semitism, he should have purged the party of Tory Blairites, (Boris even sacked people like Ken Clarke because they were not with the program) Labour only need look in the mirror for answers as to why it lost big time!
Labour are a complete waste of space and time, its MP's are closet Tories, Blairites and it membership is made up of mostly PC Liberals who like playing at being left wing. Ergo it was Brexit that killed any chance of Labour winning the second ref, er I mean G.E. Its MP's couldn't accept democracy, and its membership couldn't accept democracy, and they all looked down their noses on "thick, ignorant, racist" labour VOTERS. And Starmer will continue to campaign against democracy, ensuring Labour can never win. Any socialist putting any hopes in Labour London is like pissing in the wind! an exercise in futility!
- Tim Everett
...................................
No comments:
Post a Comment