796
'Neoliberal capitalism' has contributed to the rise of fascism, says Nobel laureate
(www.abc.net.au)
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
796 points (96.7% liked)
World News
38553 readers
2497 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The truth is, a real market is never actually truly competitive. In an unregulated market, competing firms always collude with each other to set prices and wages for the industry. "Free market" ideology is based on nonsense, they've proven this over and over.
In a free market, aren't you free to collude with your competitors in order to fix prices?
In a Hayekian free market, yes. Most (all?) actual free markets prohibit cartels, though.
There's no such thing. All markets are regulated. Even ones dominated by cartels. Markets do not meaningfully exist without regulation. The only question is how they're regulated.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
Those conditions of course don't exist in the real world, best we can do is to regulate away market failures to approach the theoretical ideal. That's the kind of thing ordoliberalism argues for, and it can indeed work very well in practice. Random example: You want companies to use packaging with less environmental impact. You could have a packaging ministry that decides which company uses what packaging for what, creating tons of state bureaucracy -- or you could say "producers, you're now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself". What previously was an externality for those companies suddenly appears on their balance sheet and they self-regulate to use way more cardboard, easily recyclable plastics, whatnot.
Definitely wouldn't solve the problem as they'd just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.
Corporations don't self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.
Those are illegal. Already were before. I'm not talking about a hypothetical, here, the policy is over 30 years old.
Yeah if they do that were you are then maybe elect better politicians. They sure as hell try it over here but it's not nearly as much as an issue as e.g. in the US.
I dunno if I were in Germany I wouldn't be so smug about electing politicians that prevent a slide into fascism.
Are you actually trying to make a point or did you simply want to be hostile.
My point is that it's not as simple as setting "common sense" neoliberal rules when the corporations actively evade them. The problem in the US is also more complicated than you're making it, here we need to basically redo a court which is full of people on lifetime appointments in order to roll back their ruling that political corruption is basically free speech.
The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that's not securing property rights for the affluent.
This "regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better" thing is ordoliberalism. An actual economic theory I don't fully agree with but which is mostly sane, and is, most of all, unlike neoliberalism not pure class war. Ordoliberalism e.g. considers welfare necessary so that the labour market isn't stacked in favour of the employers.
Don't agree with your definition of "neoliberal" really at all, and especially not within the context of American politics. It's too narrow and wouldn't fit most any politician.
Do we really have to have yet another esoteric term for what is largely the same school of thought?
I am not really sure what point you are trying to make other than arguing definitions. Much of or even most of prominent American politicians in the last half century or so could be classified as neoliberals. They favor "market"-based solutions to everything and "public-private" partnerships. Many of those still consider welfare necessary as well so they'd be "ordoliberals" in your book.
Actually, maybe not because that just sounds like German for neoliberal.
The concept of regulatory capture is the fundamental illustrating concept in modern US politics. Industry groups and the wealthy sit on our politicians until they get exactly what they want. Traditional and increasingly even social media serve as the persuasion arm for the wealthy, industrial class. Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via "self-regulation" simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.
There are a few places in the country where politicians can hit back at industry groups with some degree of success, but even in our most "ordoliberal" or "liberal liberal" or "neoliberal" or "choco-moco-latta-yaya-liberal" states, industry mostly wins.
And we're just ahead of the curve in the slow slide toward fascism. Exactly as the Nobel laureate here is saying, neoliberalism is just another mechanism used to hollow out the government from within and make it ineffective until it serves mostly no one, and then that disenchantment with material conditions over time leads to right-wing populism (a.k.a. fascism).
The Marxists have been saying this all along, and I am not a Marxist though I agree with a lot of Marx's analysis on capitalism and industry. I think there is an alternative, and I think mid-century American politics illustrated it...strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.
All those are absolutely things in line with, required by, ordoliberalism. They are very much not in line with neoliberalism. Maybe you should've actually read the theory section of that wikipedia article you linked because it talks about unions, of welfare, progressive taxation, and definitely regulations.
Speaking of Marx: He is, via Weber, a definite influence on ordoliberalism. The Freiburg school (whence ordoliberalism) is to economics what the Frankfurt school (whence critical theory) is to sociology.
I said it before and I'll say it again: The American mind can't comprehend European social liberals.
That may very well be. But you're talking about the US, specifically. Complaining about regulation not working in the US is like complaining that rule of law is a non-starter in Somalia: The issue is not the idea of the rule of law, but Somalia being Somalia.
Oh so smug, and yet still "European social liberals" are constantly on the brink of having their own outbreak of fascism.
I think that one of the few reasons the Nazi party hasn't re-emerged in Germany is that it's strictly forbidden by law.
Oh yes, it's simply because the US is the US, and has nothing to do with the fact that we've had neoliberal politicians for approximately 50 years. All of that stuff I mentioned at the end of my last post was describing mid 20th century US politics.
Also, comments like "rule of law doesn't work in Somalia because it's Somalia" show me you have exactly nothing to add to any conversation about geopolitics and borders on racism.
Our implementation isn't flawless, either. Things generally started to go downhill in the 90s when the direct ideological competitor in the form of the soviet block vanished. The rise of New Labour, a flurry of completely mismanaged privatisations, etc. The system overall is annoyingly sluggish but there very much is consciousness that that fascist stuff and that we now have a precariat are connected. Acting on that consciousness is harder.
In any case that's not a fault of the theory itself: Things fall apart pretty precisely in those spots where it's being ignored.
I'm sorry yes you having that kind of politics in the past is exactly why the US is how the US is. Like, time and determinism exist. Longer than that, actually: While things went downhill in the US approximately with Nixon, you on top of that started that slide from a lower starting point. Random example: You never had a right to housing. Not just "well if Democrats are in power we might be lucky and get a social housing project" but "Can't make rent? Can't find an apartment? Push come to shove the state will have to pay for a hotel room and if they don't courts will hold the mayor in contempt". Those kinds of difference goes all the way back to rugged individualism and whatnot. Or, less detailed but not less accurate: Because the US is the US.
The fuck would race have to do with anything you really are American. Xeer does not have enforcement mechanisms that could deal with the current political and security situation, that's all that I'm saying. Somalian judges can make the justest judgements the earth has ever seen, ultimately Mao is still right about gun barrels.
"I heard a phrase once about Americans, so that must be why they're sliding towards fascism. It definitely can't be for the same reasons people have pointed to for a hundred years."
Right, right, it's not that Somalia is Somalia, it's something in their "culture"? Right?
What are the reasons those pointed-at reasons persist? Why does is that persistence more pronounced is some places, but not others? Can there be a symptom without underlying causes?
How come e.g. the death penalty is still accepted as a topic of polite conversation in America? I maybe shouldn't have led with rugged individualism, e.g. Australians have a similar streak in that regard, the real core of the issue is that the Enlightenment never truly arrived in the US. Jingoism, understood as the general notion of "we're already the best it's impossible for us to get better by learning from others" also plays a large role, I guess it's half your isolationist streak, and half strategy by the powers that be to avoid questioning of the status quo. There's definitely policy in place to reinforce it through the education system -- from limited and navel-gazing curriculum to the pledge of allegiance which btw is fascist AF.
I specifically mentioned Xeer, no need on your part to speculate, or pretend I wasn't being clear.
Read theory if you're actually curious and not just posting to post. Personally, I've come to think of inequality as being at the center of it all.
But the reason is certainly not "because <> is <>".
Inequality doesn't just turn up out of nowhere.
I never claimed "because country is country" is a deep and meaningful analysis of the material factors in a given country and its history. What it is, and what I expect people with a modicum of knowledge of the English language to understand it as, is vaguely gesturing at the overall situation and saying "this thing here that be the way it do". You know, pizza is tasty because it's pizza does one always have to be more specific than that.
Why would anyone post this? Of course it didn't just turn up out of nowhere.
That quoted phrase you have there is pure hot nonsense.
Good. Then you agree that it's valuable to look at the reasons for inequality, I presume, and not stop at "inequality is the centre of it all". Both material and immaterial ones. Or to put in classic Marxist terms (a bit reductive but it's close enough): What's the economic and cultural obstacles to class consciousness.
It's using habitual/continuative aspect. "This thing here that is habitually that way because it habitually is that way".
I know you think you're the smartest person on Earth giving unthinking Americans lessons or something but you haven't taught me a damned thing here at all except what the German word for neoliberal is.
(But, I know, don't dare call them that!!! 😡🤬 😤)
😆
Separately, even frequent users of the habitual be wouldn't write a sentence like that.
That's not even remotely true. Natural monopolies exist because of how natural resources work, and oligopolies or undercutting of prices to destroy weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.
It can't happen given perfect rationality as it's not in the rational interest of the majority to allow a minority their monopolies.
It's a fucking theoretical model. The maths check out, that's not the issue the issue is that it's theory, with very glaring limitations.