Understanding Neoliberalism as a System of Power
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 05. 2023
- IIPP Visiting Professor of Practice, Damon Silvers, explores the understanding of neoliberalism as a global system of political economy rather than as a set of politics within advanced countries, and the paradox of neoliberalism, that an ideology of freedom produces a reality of power.
This is a masterclass in international political economy for those who don't have the chance to go to graduate school!
No
@@williampearson6299 what?
But it is so boring. If you have internet access why listen to this crap.
envying
This is one lecture, and much of the content is debatable at best, some downright false. If you think one lecture is the same as a Master's, give never done one.
I'm blown away by this lecture. It is not in my field of common knowledge, but what I have taken from it is that we the normal people living our normal lives have been duped by our leaders - leaders that have been iconized and made to appear as heroes, yet they were and still are - whether alive or dead - evil. I just hope that the new multipolar world order that is rising will bring some overall holistic changes for us all and we can move into a new era for humanity.
Christ, is that it?
To generalise and call those that have the Power as "Leaders" you have not grasped the full extent of this "duping"...
I am surprised that he did not mention Buckminister Fuller - "Spaceship Earth" being american..
The way to catch "them" is in the substantiation of Treason.
1984 newspeak...
Absolutely nothing liberal about Neoliberalism....
This new multipolar world is what I hope that will bring at least a minimum of dignity and prosperity to Asian, African and Latin American countries. We here in South America are hoping that will be the case.
live is evil to a normally norman and saxon heritage and way that this misery the hold (meT er,ic) K qc ue up a gain for,rest when its time fo,rest me its when im (rest ed) as more ac c sep,T,embers is the going gone when on was me off wasnt on or off (left tin) is left in from here to their frme here thier tier where eaten by the mass a gain
Wage labor is renting yourself via "self ownership". Employment is literally renting another human being as if they're property. The employer-employee relationship is a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract, like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is why, at the very least, capitalism needs unions and safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value people for their human value. Importantly we must also think about our sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class to value. We must figure out a way to change this economic system if we wish to value each other.
How would you reconcile the fact that a large portion of the population would fight to maintain this status quo because they stand to gain nothing of it changes?
have you ever considered socialism?
Marx called it alienation.
@@liquidantonym6322 How would they gain nothing?
@@liquidantonym6322 they must be fought and defeated politically or physically
It is a crying shame that this video has been watched by so few people. It should be watched by at lease 1 Billion. But alas not many of them would want to understand it or maybe they couldn't even if they wanted to. Thank you Damon.
I found it unconvincing.
You’re exactly correct that most people don’t want to understand this. So much easier to think that capitalism is the route to freedom and that it’s the Christian god’s blessing because he guides it by his invisible hand.
“J is for Junk economics” & everything by Michael Hudson who has been a decade ahead of our establishment
Imitation is the highest form of flattery
@@gebrehiwotewnetu358 praise be his name ... mr. hudson the man
Great recommendation!
This is exactly right. A truly fantastic talk updating & summarizing so many of the key parts of the narrative. ...Until we really understand these parts, we can't find more solutions.
This is for the most part a good lecture, however it has a fatal flaw: China was decidedly *not* part of the neoliberal system. In fact, one of the reasons there was global economic growth (and poverty reduction) during the neoliberal era was precisely because of China's massive growth under its market socialist model.
Unfortunately, this lecture has clear anti-China bias, and obviously aims to advocate for a return to Keynesianism in the West, but within the context of the new cold war on China. The contradiction is between capital and labor, not between "democracy" and "authoritarianism".
For people who are interested in learning about China's role in opposition to the neoliberal system, I would recommend reading "How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate" by Isabella Weber.
You kind of miss one of your own talking points. Such as China is not a neoliberal system. And therein lies the problem. China is not part of the neoliberal club along with other countries such as Russia which is also being met with great hostility.
I've heard Chris Hedges talk about Neoliberalism, but I never knew what that was before watching this lecture.
These are some of the BEST lectures on these systems of power I have ever listened to. I was absolutely RIVETTED. UCL/IIPP , more more more please. Prof Silvers is just ..indomitable!
This video explains why 1000 bankers were conviced in 1990 savings and loan crisis, but zero in the 2007 financial crisis. This video explains why half the country think the FDA is cappptured by pharma. This video explains why it is perfectly normal to earn $100 million working as a public servant.
It also explains why the engineers of the biggest fraud in the history of humanity from late 2019 to the present day have faced zero accountability despite killing hundreds of thousands of people
As a Chilean i can say this is very accurate, excelent lecture!
As a Chilean, I just facepalmed.
Aweonao
September 11, 1972 comes to mind, correct?
@@jimrobcoyle You are thinking about 1973, but that is unrelated.
@@alfredosaint-jean9660 , If you think 1973 Chile is unrelated to the subject of neoliberalism, you are an idiot.
The Chicago Boys went where? Oh that's right... DUH!
A truly holistic lecture, fascinating insight into twists and turns of influence and power, by design, accident, and/or willful ignorance. The long term consequences of which is never addressed in the short term electoral cycles, probably also by design, and denial that governance is now totally out of the hands of electorate.
Great teaching... Very clear articulation of what Neoliberalism is, and what the devastating consequences were/are for society...
This lecture together with the next one in this series: "Beyond Neoliberalism..." is the most clear cut explanation I have heard so far about Neoliberalism and the deep trouble humanity is stuck now in. It is epochal!
To those who do not understand that: I am really sorry for you guys...
Very helpful and illuminating talk from Professor Silvers. Looking for part 2 now…
This is a really excellent lecture. Sorry to see it's only had 40,000 views in its first three weeks. I hope more people find it.
"Market Fundamentalism" is a much better phrase. I feel like people should start using that - it's more to the point and less confusing to the uninitiated than "neoliberalism".
it's like the religious variety; a fanatical system of belief
"Market Fundamentalism" at least means something, "neoliberalism" is just a term someone pull out of their ass.
A new liberalism?
I'm not too sure that the term Market Fundamentalism or the term Neoliberalism do any good toward capturing whatever Mr. Silvers is trying to talk about here - and in the U.S. anyway, Libertarianism (with or without the capital L, a slight distinction) is probably the better term. Now I'm far from being any sort of deep-in-the-weeds libertarian, although I suspect that Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz are far better economists than John Maynard Keynes or that crazy idiot running the Fed and needlessly ruining the global economy right now as we speak, Jerome Powell. I'll concede that to some degree I'll go along with the libertarian attitude in that I support the owning of capital (as opposed to the opposite attitude, which is essentially communism), but I think that most libertarians go way too far by suggesting that the government should not be involved in essentially anythings. In fact, although I think it ridiculous that Tucker Carlson was kicked off the airwaves, the one thing I don't miss is the little side note that he's way too libertarian for my tastes. Now if some of you want to use the term Market Fundamentalism, well fine if you wish to do so - I can go along with that and just call them MFers for short. But the term Neoliberalism simply makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps Neoliberalism makes more sense to the Brits, and I guess Silvers does teach at a London school, and maybe the terminology is different there.
When he talks about Classical Liberalism and Neoliberalism - once I take notes to figure out what he's really talking about, my reaction is that he's got the terminology all wrong. In U.S. English terminology, what he's really talking about is Classical Conservativism and Neoconservatism (with a libertarian twist). When he calls it Classica Liberalism versus Neoliberalism, that's pretty confusing too me, because to my ears, when I hear the adjective Neoliberal, it immediately reminds me of the wack jobs on the far left who claim to be liberal, but they're really just nut jobs. I consider myself both a Classical Liberal and a Constitutional Liberal in the sense(s) that I believe in and want to maintain the liberal principles of thought that both underlie the U.S. Constitution (that I want to keep in play) and that also tend to make one want to help out those of his fellow mankind that need a little boost to enable them to do better for themselves. So that means that (as long as we don't overdo it) I'm in favor of taxing us and then spreading that wealth around in a manner that probably benefits the poor more than the rich, yet other than taxing the rich a bit more than the poor, I am in favor of the property owners and capitalists being able to invest in our economy and then reap the reasonable benefits/profits from doing so.
But when he talks about the "key idea of the entrepreneurial state, and that the state is a source of creativity and innovation, and that markets are shaped by states," that scares the ever-lovin crap outta me. Where did he get that idea from? I suspect, straight from NeoMarxism or NeoCommunism. In the U.S., we have this huge problem of the Deep State. That is, the (Federal especially) bureaucracy seems to have the idea that America is not a democratic federal republic, but rather that it is a "dictatorship by the bureaucracy." Said bureaucracy just makes crap up as it goes along, and lots of people call that the Deep State, which was one of the big motivations for Trump getting elected to his first term - he pledged to purge the Deep State, but was largely unsuccessful in doing so. More than ever, the U.S. Federal government is operated by Presidential executive order rather than congressional votes. The deep state feels they have the right to ignore the Constitution and try out anything they please. Now it sounds to me that more than anything else, Mr. Silvers is strongly advocating in favor of the Deep State! I guess maybe England doesn't have a Constitution (so sad that they were their own oppressor so they really had nobody to rebel against, I guess), but in the U.S. Constitution there are no words whatsoever talking about the entrepreneurial state, or the state as a source of creativity and innovation, or markets shaped by states." The latter BS is not in the U.S. Constitution, and historically, whenever the state did try to be creative, it messed up more often than not. I'm fine with our government trying to improve things, but I fear that with some notable exceptions, most of our Congressmen and Senators are downright stupid. We would probably be a lot better off if our citizens more frequently weighed in to their representatives about specific issues up for discussion/vote (and in many cases, the proper weigh-in would be to tell them not to vote for X-and-such). I will continue to watch this to see if the speaker has anything actually useful to say. But I'm pretty doubtful. He mostly seems like a well-intentioned bloke who speaks a different (hard-to-understand) version of English than I do, and is mostly trying to push his NeoMarxist ideas on us.
i think i found landlord 😮
i liked your comment in it's way, yet interestingly your focus t 100% avoided the actual substance of this lecture's topic. (by reflexively pushing confusion about definitions of down everyones throats 😂)
.. what does "NeoMarxism" mean? is it something bad? how? is it like "woke"? 😮
almost totally unrelated but, ever heard of a so called "thought-terminating cliche" ?
interesting concept
Wow! This seems super insightful and to be coming from a unique perspective, at least for me. I grew up in the seventies and have watched these shifts in power and ideaology unfold before my eyes. The horrible thing is to think where we have come from and think where we are now today. If that doesn't sadden you we have different ideas of reality. Jaja. Take it from the man.
"paradox" is a rather generous way to put it!
Ditto for the "logic that flows through it"
Apparently, he was born to give this presentation because it’s essentially perfect and his delivery of it is flawless. We have needed desperately a description of new liberalism that people can actually access and which has graphs and evidence rather than Professor Chomsky’s descriptions that don’t give people anything to really grab onto.
It’s so interesting! That fact about the failure of the Tien An Men Square uprising being the number one factor in establishing neoliberal dominance because it meant China could provide limitless cheap labour to the rest of the world’s largest economies. That blew my mind
Tienanmen Square was a US Colour Revolution attempt.
This should be watched by the whole world! It should be headline news!
Great talk, some history that everyone should know. The answers from two questions at the end seemed really interesting to me.
At 1:17:13 a man asks about the nature of power arising from markets. Damon provides a really nice description of the development of 'political economy power':
"if you are able to gain enough market power in a business to accumulate some wealth, that that wealth can then buy political power and that that political power can then set your tax rate and that political power can disarm your anti-trust regulators and that political power if need be can put tanks in the street on your behalf and that the consequence is the ability of whomever has that level of political power that derives from economic power to then reproduce the economic power"
He then summarises:
"neoliberal policies do lead to higher incomes for wealthy people, but that's not what they're for, they're for the accumulation of power. Neoliberalism is not about freedom, it's about power and it's about the intersection and the reinforcing of economic and political power"
This is all great and a fantastic summary of the dynamics of neoliberalism and of the talk.
The very next question at 1:22:14 asks about the whether people like Friedman, Reagan and Thatcher knew what they were doing was bad........and Damon says he thinks they were acting in good faith.
Good faith about what exactly? Reproducing and reinforcing economic and political power for elites?
In the same response he also thinks it's terrible, but can't figure out how to square the fact that Thatcher was Pinochet's biggest fangirl. And he doesn't seem to connect it with her motives and ideology. No she was just acting in "good faith". And Friedman?!
This, unfortunately, appears to be the classic tale of academic and corporate center-leftists (Damon's a Havard trained lawyer) attributing motives to right-wing ideologues that they clearly don't/didn't have: in this case, he seems to be willing to take at face value political campaign speak that Thatcher and Reagan really really just wanted the best for everyone in the long run. It's absurd.
Die-hard conservatives fully believe that there are natural and unbreakable heirachies and that they naturally belong on top (hence the overt racism and pure hatred of the working classes and the denial of any possibility of larger societal structures - "there's no such thing as society"). It's this belief in unchangeable structred heirarchies, that is antithetical to the proper functioning of democracies, that drives the scramble for power. The absolute fear of being in any way accountable to 'the filthy masses'.
Damon frames it as a human tragedy story: "There's a terrible repetition to this, which Reagan and Thatcher as human as human beings should have known, particularly Reagan, but they chose to believe what they believed."
Quick tip, they absolutely knew what they were doing. Just like Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Emmanuel Macron, etc. do/did.
Just because you went to school and college with tons of people like this, doesn't make them honorable and good faith.
Absolutely. There this lecture needs a bigger dose of reality.
His lecture to you is part of the project.
You Unitedstatians and Europeans tend to forget that the first real-world laboratory for Neoliberalism was Chicago boys Chile under Pinochet dictatorship, it was not Thatcher's UK. Thank-you professor for reminding everybody of that outrageous fact.
Also, good not to forget the role, that the Roman Catholic Churches war against Communism, played in the implementation of Ruling Class Global Capitalism. Especially among the Catholic Priests and the faithful Masses.
Yes! the Catholic church has been useless against Anglo/Judea dominance in social and international and financial affairs.
Point us toward information about this...😊
Great stuff! Thanks. Looking forward to the whole series.
People were critiquing neo-liberalism along time before Joe Stiglitz. One was Angus Maddison who warned in 1985 about capital market deregulation becoming "axiomatic".
I would also argue that neo-cliassical economists are not the right people to question neo-liberalism, even ones that claim to be left of centre. Why? Because they believe the appropriate manner to analyse an economy is from the basis that it is an aggregation of individual optimising agents - essentially this is the at the core of neo-liberalism itself. In this sense an economy is not a social construct; it is basically a giant market.
The reason neo-classical economists do this is so they can have a mathematical model. But essentially for achieving that they basically start from the assumption of perfect markets and rationality. This is very much the philosopny of Utilitarianism, particularly Bentham and Mill. They then add in frictions to allow for 'market failure". But this is forcing the theory of evolution into Genesis. This is not an appropriate means to understand capitalism, and its related human and social behaviour.
Really the most eloquent critics of this methodology of this are Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas. Basically a fundamental critique of neo-liberalism becomes one also of neo-classical economics which in turn becomes a philosophical critique of many aspects of Modernism and Positivism.
Keynes is ambiguous, but increasingly he began to recognise radical uncerainty and condemned classical economists for their 'pretty and polite techniques'.
The implications for policy flow from this ideology and methodological practice. For example 'left wing' neo-classical economists believe that the market should allocate resources, but "winners compensate losers". Blair's Third Way was the quintessential expression of Neo-liberalism. Something like collective bargaining successfully seen in non-Anglo Saxon European social democracies are dismissed because they cannot conform to this model. Neo-classical economists argue that they are a failure in both theory and practice, pointing out their experience in Anglo-Saxon countries. Given the lack of critical reasoning in neo-classical economic training (which is almost entirely algebraic and is all about forcing things into a standard model, usually by creating something arbitrary and fictional in an attempt to get results outcomes that are actually seen in the real world) they do not even ask why they work in some countries and not in others.
You cannot have neo-classical economists critique neo-liberalism. Because stripped of arbitrarily imposed frictions, they are fundamentally the same thing.
How about people being turned into serfs or indentured slaves criticising Neoliberalism economics is that alright with you?
Your post is extremely difficult to read, because you have basically strung 4 or five paragraphs into one overly large block of text. This is a common mistake made by most posters who have a lot of information to convey.
Forcing readers to struggle by trying to navigate their way from sentence to sentence is a major distraction from following your whole point. If you wish to communicate more effectively with this post and in future, you should do some proper editing.
As far as your assertion that neo-classical and neo-liberal economists being the basically the same thing, I would agree. I also agree with this excellent presentation. But I'm willing to listen to all honest critics of neo-liberalism, no matter where they are coming from.
Completely true
What was you Fark handle?
Way too much study in the past trying to figure out a reason how this what we live in came to be. Admittedly spending way to much time on Western histories looking towards the east as magical or mystical. Chomsky hammering the point of language being central to cultural differences struck a chord as to obsession with "perfecting" another language. So fun and satisfying, btw. Made this knuckle dragger mad so many times. Stumbling back to Glubb brought about a focussed obsession on "studying" the histories of the entire world with his challenge.
Damned if he made a point that struck home. The perception of history changes. The prejudices in the retellings of the past have a bit of a filter and the pattern of the rise and fall of empires sticks out why the Western enlightened "logic" or logis is stripped away. Tossing aside an assertion simply because it can be claimed as fallacy is powerful, causes fear, and to some "educated" can easily be dismissed and denigrated.
All that bs stated it's simple for this cave dweller, that has zero interest in sportsball, to see that all of this academic discussion as extremely interesting as it is, is nothing more than a distraction from those that are exploiting the growth of the new empire as the old empire falls. Nothing will stop the suffering that never ends.
The small sliver in time that one place on the planet permitted one to have a family, a home, a slice of land, and could redress the governing body for grievances is over with applause. Maybe that's for the best. Meh.
What this moran that's spent well over 20k hours in futility would like to know is the stories of the current Smedley Butlers of today will say one day but the dirt nap will have been had for decades or centuries after the air addiction is bested.
//Misses the olden days of Fark
@@ivandafoe5451 Thank you for your kind and helpful comment. I have fixed the paragraphing issue. I have also reproduced the comment on Lars Syll's blog post "Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics" .
I enjoyed the lecture and found it an extremely good critique of neoliberalism as a system. My only critique is that you can tell that the Professor Silvers has not engaged much with thought outside of what you would call the "centre left, neoclassical field". As with most analyses of social systems, you can find Marxists and leftists who have been making stronger critiques for decades. Michael Hudson being the most outstanding with strong predictions in 1972 in his book SuperImperialism.
You can also see this with Professor Silvers saying the Tiananmen Protests were a "democracy" movement when anyone who has actually looked into it will find that a plurality of the protestors were Maoists with only a minority being people who wanted some sort of Western system. The Chinese aren't neoliberal and you can discover this extremely easily by reading what they say and actually looking at what they do. For more reading "How China Escaped Shock Therapy" by Isabella Weber
Fantastic lecture
Thanks for such an illuminating talk!
Great talk. absolutely appreciated
Great presentation, confirms my research
Fantastic lecture. We need more of this.
What an absolutely smashing lecture thx Forbidden Planet for these words and thx Prof for the chat ciao paul
Thank you for the video but what you should've addressed is , how is it that every western nation has adopted neoliberalism as its form of government ?
Through a concerted, decades long campaign of infiltration and subversion by the intelligence services of the American deep state.
Corruption!
That is the power system they created.
A good read for understanding this idea even more deeply is the work "Capital as Power" by Nitzen and Bichler.
This is a surprisingly high view count. Here, let me comment to increase the odds of more seeing this.
Great presentation.
Thank you so much for this presentación!!
What a great talk!
Wonderful and insightful lecture. I appreciate the thoughts offered. Neoliberalism has become a world power That keeps prevailing.
Because of capitalism
Thank you for this !
colleges should release more lectures, it's really awesome getting to hear KNOWLEDGe.
I don't agree with the book banning.
Book banning is fascist, I agree.@@jirehla-ab1671
Very extensive and excellent, and yet no mention of the enabling technologies that made the globalization of neo-liberalism possible, aside from the exploding rocket of course, and the last question, which was asked and answered ahistorically. Still, a fascinating lecture. The insight about Tiananmen Square was particularly stunning.
what was the T.S. insight? ty
@@clumsydad7158 38:37
He only says that he think this was the reason not how or why and he dosent know how things would have looked if it had gone different
Because technology is overrated. Worldwide empires existed for centuries.
I agree, context is everything. The perspective of history and developments, what is done in comparison to what was said that should be the outcome reveals the goals, even if inherently and/or implicit and not outspoken. What came out of it can only then be said to have been the goals all along.
Somehow it feels to me like power as a goal of neolibaralism has been known for decades, even by the common man, if not with these words. While i am glad that it is put into a theory that can be referenced, i am equally sad that it took first the system to fail massivly with things like climate change and mounting public pressures because of a lack of jobs and production capabilities in certain regions. Then again gaining power as selfevident goal does not care about some minor side effects i suppose, especially when their main enemy aka public participation in said power struggle, is deminished.
Most of the times in the past these things were kept unheared. The voices of citizens muted so some corporation and their owners could make more money. Muted by lobbyists, by revolving door politicians taking a check for their campaigns and judges appointed along political party interests and depending where you lived muted by death squads and assassins. Meanwhile a single person always had to fight an uphill battle to get heared. Money deminishes the rights and possible pressure a citzien on his own could put out in the world in comparison to corporations buying access, time and votes. with their force multiplying production methods resulting in manyfold more income than a single person could ever have.
Ofcause it is a system of power, we knew and recognized that the minute our voices have been demished.
So how is it that academia took this fucking long to recognize it? I assume because most of academia was complacent as well in parts complicit. Looking at how in the US private eduction as taken root like a cancer it isn't really hard to imagine that therefor an elite is being produced due to that private education system, seeing itself seperated and above anyone else, that then goes along with these changes to powerstructures and even pushes those forward. A swedish study has shown how empathy goes down due to elitest seperation into different educational systems for the common man who nolonger will be recognized as a fellow man by the elits who think them as their betters. What we end up with is a new monarchy, only that the monarchs are hidden behind layers of corporate structures, not having to take responsible for the failings of their companies and their offspring often enough not even anylonger interested int the day to day things happening in the world just like Louis XVI. I am just waiting for a Jan 6th that couldn't be stopped, not because i want it to happen, but i can see how people can't find another way in time to revert the changes of Neolibarlism ... just sad that the republicans are the exact wrong party for that ^^. Instead they would get much more of the same without realising the underlying currents.
55:55 look at the drop in 2000. Back then i felt like the US regime under Bush W. had stolen my future and my nation wasn't even part of any of the war on terrorism bullshit they pulled on their people and their imaginary enemies in Iraq. It was the fascist puppet master showing his tricks 'and nobody seemed to notice, nobody seemed to care'. One thing also should be clear, this is not so much different to the times before, during and after WWII, fascism as a concept was never really defeated as it is inbread in economical theories whenever companies compete with each other. Those want to win over each other, but in the end they are parasites on society in terms of power and wealth distribution. Doesn't make any small entrepreneur a bad person, i am not even suggesting that there is a puppet master, instead i would say the streams of thought that coralate and make up what is Neoliberalism have a cybernetic Moloch like selfsustaining momentum.
Neoliberalism is the make up on the fascistic pig.
Not only has it enriched the rich, coerced the disenfranchised to submission or indirectly eliminated them in some nations, made the poor impoverished, trampled other species to extinction, used child labour (Elon Musk had to certify that no products that used child labour would be used in his new Tesla plant Germany, something not required in USA) but infiltrated the greatest asset of the society, the public school education, that they want to privatize. It served us well for centuries and facilitated the emergence of this privileged and enormously rich class, that still believes that their mansion or yacht is a safe heaven amidst the environmental degradation, climate change or a nuclear war.
Teenage kids with big phalluses. None of them are contributing to nuclear arms control and I shudder at the thought of some human error or terrorist action that could lead to them and their loved ones into being turned to charcoal, which aliens may someday use as fuel.
With each passing year we are steadily increasing the statistical probablities of nuclear catastrophe.
Kids, dreamers, brain impaired, power and wealth hungry or perhaps suicidal class or what is more likely they are all deep inside religious and believe that they have mission.
This is where our priorities must be set unless you believe in god to save our species. Who else but the rich could do it, but then some like Musk are going to moon, Eric Schmidt will wake up after 2000 years after his brain is frozen that long. I have no idea what Koch brothers plan. Perhaps a big bunker? Wall Street gamblers will probably hold on to their Fiat currency to ward of radioactivity. And Trump, he will of course try to grab a pussy.
Because the absolute truth of communication is mono-dualistic.., ie social metastability is this dynamic relative-timing ecology of amplitude and frequency probability of superficial appearance of balance, the language used to describe our common situations is mono-dualistic, and every statement contains the indication of opposite meanings. Every student of politics knows about "Mendacity".
The outstanding feature of neoliberal political statements is the divisive duplicitous nature of total hypocrisy "believed in" by adherents, ..difficult to deny because "you can't prove negatives" or predict the failures of emphatically made promises based on borrowed authority, particularly when military defence of democracy is a contradiction in reference-framing terms.
The places where the hammers come down are I believe what Chris Hedges calls sacrifice zones.
extract & dehumanize
Can someone provide a concrete example of "power" as something economic theory fails to take account of?
I wish I had professors like you when I was in university...
Nine years on and the importance of this is clear.
Brilliant summary of the dominant ideaology of the past 30-40 years
I haven't yet watched but I'll be surprised if anything new comes to light for me
Outstanding presentation, very enlightening. Thank you.
Where can I find part two?????
I didn't get why the Chinese flag was on the first slide? 🤔 And also other icons. Were those the sponsors of the lecture?
They're all beneficiaries of neo liberalism. China's Dengist approach is essentially "exploit the stupid capitalist westerners shooting themselves in the foot to become the global leader"
To scare you?😅
The presentation was great; I have to do a bit of checking where the data came from and form my own judgement as to the quality...
A few observations and conclusions were a bit wrong though "All in All". I personally have a more negative perspective of the individuals and their background..
I hope to find the other lectures he mentioned. Please have a mind for those without all their seances; e.g. blind, deaf.
An important chart upon which Silvers relies to make his case is the World Bank GDP chart from 1970 to the present which suggests a show down in global GDP growth starting in 1981, the start of neoliberalism.. If you look at the same World Bank chart from 1961 when such data first started being collected it tells a different story. namely that global GDP was declining twenty years prior to the advent of neoliberalism. Why did the professor leave out the first ten years of data? Because it doesn't support his narrative.
Propaganda
Loved this
The values are essential to understanding where it is going. The value is social responsibility.
Unlike early industrial age, free market economy is not that efficient than other systems like soviet-style socialism in current modern society.
The real reason behind it is 'Intellectual Property' concept. Unlike 'real' properties, intellectual property only exists by government intervention and regulations (like DMCA, etc.) and this is not only paradoxical to (neo)liberalism, but also hinders its efficiency by free flow of information and technology. The only way to protect so-called 'intellectual property' is through government forces (law enforcement, intelligence agencies, military-industrial complex) and they are much more like 3rd century Roman Empire and 16th century Ming Empire.
Good point.
exactly
Are neoliberalism, + original liberalism
the same as laissez faire + newer term
savage or wild capitalism (capitalismo
selvaje) ?
Companies say air pollution is the smell of money
The paradox of neoliberalism runs in parallel with the paradox of IT. Everyone still hangs onto that early sense of 'personal liberation' via IT while knowing for sure that at each step it is binding us tighter into a socio-economic conformity that plays right into the hands of the political and economic elites.
Indeed
Thinking in systems of power....is a toxic way that provides no real answers
Can you give me an example of the belief on "personal liberation via IT"?
@@CvnDqnrU : indeed I can. Instant access to knowledge and detailed information at the touch of a few keystrokes were thought to be liberation from previously having to go to the library, buy books or consult specialists and professional adisers. I've prepared a search term for you to try out yourself. Type this into a search bar: 'Why did early users of IT believe it would be liberating?'
Ah! Paradox - if it works, why didn't you already do it to get the answer to your own query? You must suspect you won't get the answer you're looking for. Instead you'll get pages and pages of junk and gibberish jostling all over your screen and you'll quickly lose the will to trawl through it all hoping that you might just be lucky and come across the answer. Not a great feeling. Not very liberating. More like trapped up to your waist in an endless stream of low grade nonsense.
So thanks, you've jhelped prove my point, albeit inadvertently.
@@indricotherium4802 Instead of a passive-aggressive and delusional long text just admit you don't have an example.
@@CvnDqnrU : better check if you've got me mixed up with a message from someone on your smartphone. Wouldn't want to think of you confused.
43:07 completely fantastic insights here. Most Americans have bought into this neoliberal world order because they bought the idea of capitalism, but they have no idea that their own country spent 10 years over throwing democracy in Latin America, specifically but certainly not limited to Chile and certainly not limited to 10 years.
People who say "college is a scam", obviously never attended a lecture of this caliber.
This is interesting. It has made me think harder about libertarian ideas of personal property and highlights potential issues. I also thinks this begs some questions in regard to the general weakness and ineffectuality of trade unions on a global scale. The contrast between government as being dangerous to trade unions, and therefore workers, as well as being the source of democratic\populist power is a bit confusing to me but maybe I just have some more I need to learn. My personal experience is that trade unions suck.
Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine' is also a great text which elucidates this topic, especially its genesis in Chile.
As a chilean, it angers me when people use us as an alleged example to promote their political agendas.
@@alfredosaint-jean9660 I hear you brother. I’m not a neo liberal in the least bit but was just sharing a text that echoed some of the talking points in the lecture.
From my understanding it was actually pioneered by Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago then piloted in Chile. I wasn’t trying to imply that the people of Chile invented it. The global south is by and large still recovering from its colonial legacy and figuring out new decolonized systems that can subvert these neo colonial practices
As a Chilean, I know the shock doctrine is full of bs, and I think Alfredo was referring to the book.
Thank you for presenting this lecture. It is imperative for society today to understand the forces that have shaped the world in which we now live. The dissemination of this information is imperative for the survival of democracy.
Nah. Keep your democracy
@@williampearson6299 the mob will always choose to persecute outsiders. They just need to be steered.
... Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel...
The oligarchy is united under neo-liberalism / British Free Trade etc. It is only the people at large which are individuals, because individuals can be picked off one by one.
The English language lacks superlatives to describe the depth and historic transcendence of this presentation! Kudos, professor Silvers. You have filled so many ignorance gaps where I merely speculated. Your step by step presentation of how this cancerous ideology birthed and spread, your awareness-raising account of the catastrophes, domestic and international, left in its wake in the micro/macro economic, financial, sociological and political dimensions blew me away! You've removed the veil of misdirection its hierarchs and their apologists created to maintain a veneer of legitimacy and popular consent to get the majority to go along. Talk about a master dissection of inverted totalitarianism.
Be well.
I'd object to some of the terms that are traditionally used.
Such as Classical Liberalism was not inherently capitalist in the first place. I'd agree with Noam Chomsky that the logical conclusion of the principles of classical liberalism should have been Libertarian Socialism.
Libertarian - began on the left (see Left Libertarianism) and was a term hijacked by capitalists. The first American to call himself a libertarian was Individualist Anarchist/Mutualist Benjamin Tucker. It wasn't a right wing term until Murray Rothbard.
Interesting.
What does he mean by trade integration without regulatory dynamics? Vast majority of trade agreements are clauses on standards and regulations...
The Reagan quote @26:50 is ironic considering the amount of government assisted provided to the private sector by Eisenhower. Even so, Senator Joeseph McCarthy and Robert Welch accused Ike of being a communist.
@1:18 Intellectual hegemony of neoliberal ideology.
That characterization of Tiananmem event is insightful. However, the irony is that China still prospered in post-Tiananmem with the admission to WTO. The last ten years of rerversal under Xi totalitarinism will witness its downfall.
Lecture covers the academic field of economics globally from a high altitude, extensive study and pro-union. Professor Silvers labels economic trends as liberal neo-liberal and post-neoliberal with a wide-angle lens, attempting to advance order out of the chaotic, mass psychosis of present political thought. I’m looking for a rational for terminating our representative government and our Constitution in favor of international socialism.
From the reality of the street, grandiose labels sound like calling the garbage in the pie-pan, a pie because it’s in a pie-pan. By that I argue that the multiple institutions, enterprises and foreign adversaries - power mongers - converge on globalism, international and governmental authoritarianism and contradict these classical systems while threatening our Country. Is there political bias?
Viewers should be very suspicious of this presenters perspective and motivations for at 18:13 he simplistically describes the United States coup in Chile in order to replace the democratically elected and successfully run socialist Chilean government with a authoritarian but capitalist military dictatorship. US felt so threatened by the presence of a successful socialist government that close by that they deemed it preferable to overthrow a foreign democracy rather than permit its continued existence! The fact that the presenter of this video describes this violent criminal act brought about with US assistance as “a new government came into being” as if the US had nothing to do with it. His onscreen card mentions CIA “involvement” but the this too is a laughable understatement. The main motivating force in the overthrow of the legitimate democratic Chilean government was the USA. And our video presentation here barely mentions this here. Makes me wonder why.
My guess is there are to many to mention
The fallacy there is thinking that there is such a thing as a successful socialist run government. There are certainly successfully "presented" socialist governments, but as we all know they are based on lies. In the end, reality strikes, and the misery, destruction and crimes become all too real. In that sense, CIA coups to overthrow socialist governments really should be understood as mercy-killings. Sometimes it's better to shoot the horse than have it suffer... especially since in the analogy of socialist governments, the politicians become all-powerful wealthy super elites and the people suffer. Between Chile's current state, and Cuba's current state, which would wish on the Chileans? It's an interesting philosophical question I think, where do people's self-determination rights stop, especially when we know how easily manipulated the masses are? The striking reality of South/North korea is so clear today... South Korea is the result of a US-led 'coup' in a sense to defeat socialism, while North Korea is 'self-determination', albeit with help from the CCP. Would you prefer to be North Korean today? I certainly would not, and I'm not even American.
Great
I disagree on the beginnings.... it actually begins in 1947 in a little town called Mt. Pelerin in switzerland.
Americans continue to elect the same people that are two sides of the same coin. Growth and prosperity for me, breadcrumbs bootstraps and hard knocks for thee
As if is there another option.
You can't vote tyranny away.
@@alfredosaint-jean9660 You can. The genius of American politics is they made voters stupid and cynical. Vote stupid or not at all despite having that power to collectively unseat them
I remember everything he referenced in this lecture. Especially the coup against Allende, and the subsequent attacks on social democracy and the indebtedness imposed on the global south. This is the author of Brexit and trumpism. Like liberalism itself, neo liberalism is not democratic, except to the extent that working people are strong enough to confront and contain the neo liberal state.
The whole point of neoliberalism is that it ensures that they are not strong enough.
It is always great to hear people far smarter and with a better vocabulary than me; sum up concepts I grasp the general idea of, but will never be able to articulate. good stuff.
Interestingly very true
23:42 New Zealand also became highly neoliberal in the 70/80s and I am sure there are other countries as well
I love how he is just a little guy in the corner 😭
The lecture omits a few details: the post-war social democratic consensus had quite a few problems, for example Britain used to be the sick man of Europe and trade union / government bureaucrats are not very accountable to the public either. I mean Thatcher and Reagan would not have won any elections, if the previous state of things were without problems.
Economic liberalism is an ideology that is an integral part of conservative social thought about minimal government intervention in the economy of a nation and about complete freedom for individuals in the economy.
In history, countries had the highest rates of GDP growth and living standards in those times when the state intervened in the economy, supported domestic producers, subsidized them and provided them with preferential loans. Examples, Russia (period 1929-1955), China, South Korea.
Data for countries around the world whose economies grew at double-digit (almost double-digit) rates for more than 20 years in the 20th century are given below:
1. 13.8% - Russia - average annual growth for 22 years (1929-1955).
2. 11.5% - Taiwan - average annual growth for 27 years (1947-1973).
3. 10.4% - China - average annual growth for 25 years (1983-2007).
4. 10.2% - South Korea - average annual growth for 23 years (1966-1988).
5. 9.7% - Japan - average annual growth for 23 years (1948-1970).
6. 9.2% - Singapore - average annual growth for 24 years (1966-1989).
Thus, in the twentieth century, the world's largest national economic growth for more than 20 years was achieved in Russia in 1929-1955 (minus four war years). During this period, real wages grew 4 times, citizens’ deposits in savings banks grew 5 times, and the economy grew 14 times.
And:
- First place in the world in terms of the share of mechanical engineering in the total volume of industrial production.
- Complete technical and economic independence of the state has been ensured.
- First place in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of absolute industry size.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry.
- The latest industries and advanced technologies: nuclear, space, rocketry, aircraft manufacturing, instrument making, radio engineering, electronics, electrical engineering and others.
And sanctions did not prevent such economic growth in Russia!
The amazing vitality of the neoclassical paradigm and its popularity in big business circles, generously sponsoring the imposition of the resulting way of thinking on the public consciousness is explained by economic and political interests. Neoclassical economic theory plays the role of the scientific basis of the ideology of market fundamentalism and liberal economic policy, in the implementation of which large capital is interested, seeking to minimize state regulation of its activities. This ideology substantiates his claims to dominance in society, since it reduces social relations to the power of money. It also justifies modern forms of neocolonialism, which allow issuers of world currencies (primarily the American dollar) to exploit all the unequal exchange of unsecured banknotes for real wealth. Therefore, it is vigorously imposed by Washington through both direct political pressure and indirect methods, through international institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.) and funding from the expert community, to national ruling elites in order to exploit the countries they rule.
We share the same experience. And I'm damned sick of it.
This is why Sustainable Development Goals and ESG are critical for us to defeat Neoliberalism by 2030. Through economic siege by other means in the fight against climate change. We can implement a Maoist great leap forward.
What was wrong with Mao's management of the first one? He is considered an expert on both insurgency, and counter-insurgency. His means for making the populations his opposition hides in carbon neutral is a strategic success.
@@qed100 Well if you studied his thoughts on counter-insurgency. Removing the cover and concealment for the insurgent to hide among is essential to victory. IE the populations who are sympathetic to fascist right wing. Mass deaths are not a problem caused by the management. It is the solution. It is why precisely my generation looks up to Mao, to deal with the corruption and weakness of Western fascism.
How do you think we are going to deal with populist right-wingers and "muh shitlib centrists" who run cover for and protect fascists? Do you think they're just going to peacefully protest, when we have to start shutting off power plants to fight climate change? When we have to scale back farming to save the forests?
Their fascist individualist nature, is going to cause them to resist what is required for the planet to survive. So I would stop judging Maoism, and other struggles against imperialism by racist Western standards... and start embracing de-growth for a sustainable and equitable future. If I were you comrade.
I found the mention of and pointing to the Tiananmen Square protest interesting and certainly worthy of a little more thought. That said, at the time did anyone think the outcome would be different? And even had it been and some form of an open government or a democratized if you will work force had happened then what?? Clearly China one way or another was going to further entrench the neoliberal doctrine and did. And China without those reforms has done well enough. Any thoughts??
Well, they did try their great leap forward, didn't they?
The result was that daddy Friedman needed to arrive to their rescue.
The Wapping dispute was after the Miners trike..
I'm happy this showed up in my algorithm. This is education the whole US population should be learning.
Globalization or Democracy paints a simpler view from the street while defining the relentless money pump of capital divergence seen in the sectorial balance equation. Simpler yet far reaching, tracing the multiple converging paths of self interest, money and power.❤
how about the Cold War scare, why wouldn't he mention that in the context of 1973 Chile coup.
Market fundamentalism presided over the starvation of Ireland in the 19th century. Neo liberalism is content to blame rising hunger in contemporary England on the individual rather than the logical outcome of economic and political decisions.
It has presided over the largest humanitarian disasters in human history. We have gotten to this point despite living in a sick market religion.
Actually the main issue was that Britain was a colonial power. Its government enacted these policies of taking away food and relegating the Irish as 2nd class. A better example of PRIVATE power is the EIC.
I actually went away to lean what historians said about this. It seems more like a feudal system before and during the famine. Farmers rented their homesteads from landlords. When a pelage took out the main crop, potatoes, they starved and were evicted in some cases. Some people wanted to use it as an opportunity to make money and there was huge outrage. Historians think it could have turned into a civil war in Ireland and even in England. This resulted in English conservative party, later back by the liberal party, forcing land lords to sell land to their tenants.
Many land lords did not evict people as well. They actually attempted to provide for their tenants as best they could to keep them alive.
I'm not a historian myself so please excuse me.
Entrepreneurial state is exactly a neoliberal concept
❤
You can’t bring rhetoric to a gun fight. Democracy must defend itself or be overrun and defeated.
The future - Singapore model - Authoritarianism and Free market tendencies. Its comin
Good lecture, abysmal slides - far too many words - better as audio only.
regrets from chilean patagonia.