Discussion:
What is Neoliberalism?
(too old to reply)
mg
2017-06-17 21:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.

---------------

"Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our
problems

George Monbiot, Friday 15 April 2016 07.00 EDT

Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of
communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for
most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll
be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard
the term before, they will struggle to define it.
Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It
has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises:
the financial meltdown of 2007-8, the offshoring of wealth
and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education,
resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the
collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we
respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation,
apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed
or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy
that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be
than to operate namelessly?

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even
recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the
proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a
neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s
theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious
attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
. . ."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
Gary
2017-06-17 22:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
I don't mean to be argumentative. But in the back of my mind -- I really wonder
if we may not be the opposite. I think our problem (as a people) is that we
accept change too quickly. Instead of taking change a little at a time, until
we see the change is good -- we accept 100% of what our masters toss at us. In
past centuries -- any new social programs were entered into slowly. But now,
we are told that things we have always thought were bad -- are suddenly good !
And rather than disagree with such highly intelligent people -- we accept
whatever they give us. (whether it's sex practices or love of people we use to
hate).

Just a thought :-)
mg
2017-06-17 22:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
I don't mean to be argumentative. But in the back of my mind -- I really wonder
if we may not be the opposite. I think our problem (as a people) is that we
accept change too quickly. Instead of taking change a little at a time, until
we see the change is good -- we accept 100% of what our masters toss at us. In
past centuries -- any new social programs were entered into slowly. But now,
we are told that things we have always thought were bad -- are suddenly good !
And rather than disagree with such highly intelligent people -- we accept
whatever they give us. (whether it's sex practices or love of people we use to
hate).
Just a thought :-)
That's very true. In fact, I've had the same thoughts myself
and I totally agree with you. So, in that sense, I suppose I
could be considered a "conservative", at least in theory,
because I do believe that we humans often throw away the
basic principles and values and traditions that have worked
in the past and accept new ideas too rapidly.

What I meant to say, though, is that we humans, on an
individual level, tend to live in the past and fail to adapt
to changes that have already happened, or have been thrust
upon us. Take for instance the housing boom. Those
relatively few who got in early made money, while those who
didn't figure out what was going on until it was too late
lost money because by the time they understood what had
happened, the situation had already changed.

However, in this case, although there are similarities, I
wasn't talking about investing. I was talking about politics
with many people still thinking about politics in the same
way that people thought about it during the Reagan years, or
even the FDR years, and classifying the competing ideologies
as "liberal" and "conservative" which is an obsolete way to
look at the new, real-world situation. Now days it would be
more accurate to talk about neoliberals and conservatives
instead of liberals and conservatives.
Gary
2017-06-18 15:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
I don't mean to be argumentative. But in the back of my mind -- I really wonder
if we may not be the opposite. I think our problem (as a people) is that we
accept change too quickly. Instead of taking change a little at a time, until
we see the change is good -- we accept 100% of what our masters toss at us. In
past centuries -- any new social programs were entered into slowly. But now,
we are told that things we have always thought were bad -- are suddenly good !
And rather than disagree with such highly intelligent people -- we accept
whatever they give us. (whether it's sex practices or love of people we use to
hate).
Just a thought :-)
That's very true. In fact, I've had the same thoughts myself
and I totally agree with you. So, in that sense, I suppose I
could be considered a "conservative", at least in theory,
because I do believe that we humans often throw away the
basic principles and values and traditions that have worked
in the past and accept new ideas too rapidly.
What I meant to say, though, is that we humans, on an
individual level, tend to live in the past and fail to adapt
to changes that have already happened, or have been thrust
upon us. Take for instance the housing boom. Those
relatively few who got in early made money, while those who
didn't figure out what was going on until it was too late
lost money because by the time they understood what had
happened, the situation had already changed.
However, in this case, although there are similarities, I
wasn't talking about investing. I was talking about politics
with many people still thinking about politics in the same
way that people thought about it during the Reagan years, or
even the FDR years, and classifying the competing ideologies
as "liberal" and "conservative" which is an obsolete way to
look at the new, real-world situation. Now days it would be
more accurate to talk about neoliberals and conservatives
instead of liberals and conservatives.
I gave up on political labels a long time ago. I do not feel any closeness to
the modern liberal or conservative. I don't think either have the moral
principles of a .... whatever.
mg
2017-06-18 18:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
I don't mean to be argumentative. But in the back of my mind -- I really wonder
if we may not be the opposite. I think our problem (as a people) is that we
accept change too quickly. Instead of taking change a little at a time, until
we see the change is good -- we accept 100% of what our masters toss at us. In
past centuries -- any new social programs were entered into slowly. But now,
we are told that things we have always thought were bad -- are suddenly good !
And rather than disagree with such highly intelligent people -- we accept
whatever they give us. (whether it's sex practices or love of people we use to
hate).
Just a thought :-)
That's very true. In fact, I've had the same thoughts myself
and I totally agree with you. So, in that sense, I suppose I
could be considered a "conservative", at least in theory,
because I do believe that we humans often throw away the
basic principles and values and traditions that have worked
in the past and accept new ideas too rapidly.
What I meant to say, though, is that we humans, on an
individual level, tend to live in the past and fail to adapt
to changes that have already happened, or have been thrust
upon us. Take for instance the housing boom. Those
relatively few who got in early made money, while those who
didn't figure out what was going on until it was too late
lost money because by the time they understood what had
happened, the situation had already changed.
However, in this case, although there are similarities, I
wasn't talking about investing. I was talking about politics
with many people still thinking about politics in the same
way that people thought about it during the Reagan years, or
even the FDR years, and classifying the competing ideologies
as "liberal" and "conservative" which is an obsolete way to
look at the new, real-world situation. Now days it would be
more accurate to talk about neoliberals and conservatives
instead of liberals and conservatives.
I gave up on political labels a long time ago. I do not feel any closeness to
the modern liberal or conservative. I don't think either have the moral
principles of a .... whatever.
Note though, that this post wasn't about liberals or
conservatives. It was about Neoliberalism which is mostly
just another version of conservatism.
Gary
2017-06-19 15:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
I don't mean to be argumentative. But in the back of my mind -- I really wonder
if we may not be the opposite. I think our problem (as a people) is that we
accept change too quickly. Instead of taking change a little at a time, until
we see the change is good -- we accept 100% of what our masters toss at us. In
past centuries -- any new social programs were entered into slowly. But now,
we are told that things we have always thought were bad -- are suddenly good !
And rather than disagree with such highly intelligent people -- we accept
whatever they give us. (whether it's sex practices or love of people we use to
hate).
Just a thought :-)
That's very true. In fact, I've had the same thoughts myself
and I totally agree with you. So, in that sense, I suppose I
could be considered a "conservative", at least in theory,
because I do believe that we humans often throw away the
basic principles and values and traditions that have worked
in the past and accept new ideas too rapidly.
What I meant to say, though, is that we humans, on an
individual level, tend to live in the past and fail to adapt
to changes that have already happened, or have been thrust
upon us. Take for instance the housing boom. Those
relatively few who got in early made money, while those who
didn't figure out what was going on until it was too late
lost money because by the time they understood what had
happened, the situation had already changed.
However, in this case, although there are similarities, I
wasn't talking about investing. I was talking about politics
with many people still thinking about politics in the same
way that people thought about it during the Reagan years, or
even the FDR years, and classifying the competing ideologies
as "liberal" and "conservative" which is an obsolete way to
look at the new, real-world situation. Now days it would be
more accurate to talk about neoliberals and conservatives
instead of liberals and conservatives.
I gave up on political labels a long time ago. I do not feel any closeness to
the modern liberal or conservative. I don't think either have the moral
principles of a .... whatever.
Note though, that this post wasn't about liberals or
conservatives. It was about Neoliberalism which is mostly
just another version of conservatism.
The leadership of both parties sort of reminds me of the Bobsy Twins.
I just ran across a thought in another article that seems to fit
this subject:-)

-----------------------------
Democratic and Republican leaders alike offered up their ruminations on the
matter — ”ruminating” not in the sense of offering profound thoughts on the
latest tragedy, but rather, as cows “ruminate” on regurgitated cud.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/no_author/theres-one-way-unite/
w***@msn.com
2017-06-18 17:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
I don't mean to be argumentative. But in the back of my mind -- I really wonder
if we may not be the opposite. I think our problem (as a people) is that we
accept change too quickly. Instead of taking change a little at a time, until
we see the change is good -- we accept 100% of what our masters toss at us. In
past centuries -- any new social programs were entered into slowly. But now,
we are told that things we have always thought were bad -- are suddenly good !
And rather than disagree with such highly intelligent people -- we accept
whatever they give us. (whether it's sex practices or love of people we use to
hate).
Just a thought :-)
The ones in America dispensing mental pablum are the liberal college professors, and the poor suckers gobbling up this crap one hundred percent are the idjit students who are paying dearly through the nose to have their minds turned into garbage.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-06-18 00:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
---------------
"Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our
problems
George Monbiot, Friday 15 April 2016 07.00 EDT
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of
communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for
most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll
be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard
the term before, they will struggle to define it.
Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It
the financial meltdown of 2007-8, the offshoring of wealth
and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education,
resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the
collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we
respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation,
apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed
or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy
that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be
than to operate namelessly?
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even
recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the
proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a
neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s
theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious
attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
. . ."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
I still don't know what "neoliberalism" is, and I don't care.
The term will be extinct soon or have morphed repeatedly
into something other than and contrary to the current
meaning

I know what worms are, and that Martin Luther lived
on a diet of them, and that's enough knowledge for me.
mg
2017-06-18 00:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
It's been said that generals are always fighting the last
war. That's not just true of generals, though, it's true of
everybody. We like to live in the past. As individuals we
don't adapt to change very well and by the time we do
understand change, it's already too late and chances are the
situation has already changed again.
---------------
"Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our
problems
George Monbiot, Friday 15 April 2016 07.00 EDT
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of
communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for
most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll
be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard
the term before, they will struggle to define it.
Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It
the financial meltdown of 2007-8, the offshoring of wealth
and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education,
resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the
collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we
respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation,
apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed
or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy
that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be
than to operate namelessly?
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even
recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the
proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a
neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s
theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious
attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
. . ."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
I still don't know what "neoliberalism" is, and I don't care.
The term will be extinct soon or have morphed repeatedly
into something other than and contrary to the current
meaning
I know what worms are, and that Martin Luther lived
on a diet of them, and that's enough knowledge for me.
Speaking of worms:

Lord Clifford: To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.
-- Henry VI, Part 3, Act II, scene ii (c. 1591).
Loading...