Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
its the new 'privilege'.
Although I'd rather that than see just the word 'liberal' to refer to a myriad of unrelated faults.
As DD pointed out, some people really need to get a better handle on what it means in political or economic terms.
I just needed someone else to notice.
Feels good braj.
Actually I don't think I've ever asked. Do you support your lookalike, politically, or another party?
ONE DAY A TYPOLESS SASS POST
just calm down, honestly. And consider that this is xylopwn telling you to do that.
You need a setting on here that isn't cringe or sneer. You used to =) so much more.
What happened man?
It's genuinely good to see the odd flash of the old rizla skin every now and then.
than ranting, trust me.
The prophecy of Jook is correct: the longer you stay, the more than cynicism takes hold.
plus, you never answered who you vote for/which political system you believe in, fiddy.
So go ahead
the GoT game *must* be going badly.
could feel that they answered the suicide of the kamikazes [sic] by their own suicide. It has been said: “God cannot declare war on Itself”. Well, It can. The West, in its God-like position (of divine power, and absolute moral legitimacy) becomes suicidal, and declares war on itself."
that from my perspective is worlds apart from classical liberal agenda
for fairness. But i cba
neoliberalism is cancer.
So it's a form of international relations that restructures conduct of how companies and countries act towards each other to "I can do what I like" ruthless capitalist modes, homogenizing political and economic thought, and culture
So you end up with the End of History, etc
I'm not under any false impressions that it's an utterly fucked system.
I just get a bit depressed when it's confused with other systems (which actually no one here does afaik)
from the wiki page on classical liberalism:
It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism
To restructure from above the entire world to that mode of conduct internationally. It theoretically makes a homogenized global culture but as we've seen in the Middle East and Eastern Europe it really causes yet more fractured populations and war (not to mention poverty) than 'classical' liberalism.
you could probably easily make a point about classical neo-liberalism needing a massive empire to flourish properly if you wanted
Pretty sure that page is actually pretty brilliant for describing the nuances of laissez-faire, and the split in liberal ideology that occured as far back as Smith et al.
In a nutshell: some classical liberals believe in a very strict laissez-faire ideal, many others recognise the problems inherent with that. The progression to what neoliberalism is *now* is leagues away from the progressive ideologies by founders of the movement.
are also *particularly* sharp on those who would manipulate the system of 'i do what i want' to hurt others.
amongst other things malthus is listed there and he
was pretty awful
When I say I take a classic liberal view I don't mean I am taking every theory in its evolution forward into what could work for a modern worldview. That would be as batshit insane.
not saying that everything classical liberalism strove for was all bad, just that there were some seedy as fuck undercurrents and if you think putting a lot of there ideas into practice didn't harm anyone you're tripping ballz
example: malthus' ideas (amongst others) were the inspiration for the repeal of the poor laws in 1834, which in turn brought in workhouses
was mostly contesting
Basically an "i can do what i like" capitalist form of liberalism
From a modern take on the classical liberal agenda.
I don't know one single liberal who would subscribe to the Malthus train of thought
With the post you made before that too.
when I think of classical economic liberalism that's close to what I seem to associate with it. or at least full laissez-faire-ism.
anyway, as I'm sure you're probably aware by now, I don't really know enough about it to comment fully
half the time you meet up with people who believe in liberalism, you spend the first 20 minutes clarifying the specifics before you can talk about anything meaty :D
no limits, no regulation, race to the bottom, creative destruction... all that stuff.
and it is actually really context-specific. so although it is undoubtedly the dominant ideological force globally and *the* common sense way of understanding and interpreting the world, this manifests itself differently in various contexts. so in some countries, this might mean the role of the state is undermined or reduced ('deregulation' for example) and in others (I would argue the UK is included in this group), the position of the state hasn't been really been reduced but modified and in some cases this has meant greater integration of state decision making into processes of capitalist accumulation (prime example is private public partnerships). people quite often talk about state retrenchment and 'small state' liberalism as being characteristic of neoliberalism but this has been quite widely regarded by people on the left as a myth. and a fairly useful one for people who are ideologically 'neoliberals' - as in the people who advance the underlying theories and political claims. there's a pretty massive gulf between neoliberalism in theory and neoliberalism in practice, it's riddled with contradictions.
one of the main thinkers associated with critiques of neoliberlism, David Harvey, makes this distinction between NL as a utopian project ('theory') and NL as a political project to restore class power ('practice' - obviously there's not a straightforward theory/practice distinction). basically, this theory goes: around the time of the 1970s stagflation crises, global profitability was declining and new means for restoring elite class interests had to be found (this is where globalization comes in - RFWare pointed out that this is central to neoliberalism and the two must be considered together - and financialization). the whole thing really started to emerge in the early '80s when various powerful neoliberal thinkers and networks of elite interests (e.g. Mont Pelerin Society as well as various politicians and business interests) blamed the crap economic situation of the previous decade on excessive governemtn regulation, high barriers to international trade, labour laws, irresponsible levels of public spending etc. so basically THE STATE in a similar way to how some people blame Gordon Brown for the recession. (obviously the actual problem in the 1970s - and in 2008 - was the inherent crisis tendencies in capitalism ...)
so basically it describes:
- the current era of capitalism since about the 1970s
- processes of globalization
- policies under thatcher and reagan which facilitated this
- clinton and blair sort of 'third way' policies and the further restructuring of the state. this is the 'governmentality' of neoliberalism - to inject entrepreneurialism and market-oriented behaviour into all aspects of government. people trying to run hospitals "as businesses" for example. or the idea that people have to "better themselves" and get as well paid a job as possible.
- loads of other related things
that I like that people use the term to name - and so bring up for discussion - what is going on, I think it's also important that we don't just see it as a more nasty and "irresponsible" form of capitalism. capitalism's still shit.
not its managers
I reckon if anything people don't talk about neoliberalism nearly enough - even if we sometimes use it as a bit of a buzzword to mean anything vaguely to do with market individualism or current socioeconomic structures. neoliberalism is /has been the dominant ideology and mode of governance for the past 40 years. people probably talk about it so much because it has become intertwined with pretty much every aspect of social life...