The crisis of neoliberalism

Dumenil: Neoliberalism imposed a new discipline on worker, cutting the progress of purchasing power. Watch Pt.2 of this story at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxlvCoey-w

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Neoloberalism
• Gerard Dumenil
• PERI
• US capitalism
• US economy
• worker resistance
• neo social order
• labor movement
• globalization

[Rundstedt1]

(3/3)

So no matter what system of reform is instituted short of socialism, the cycle will start all over again. When the social fabric is repaired and the working class has moved on, the capitalists will again start to talk about the 'power of markets' and 'government interference' and with the power of media on their side they will again call for 'deregulation' and 'privatization,' and in another 30yrs, give or take, we'll be back at the same place.

[FreakishDonQuixote]

mises institute is to econ science what answersingenesis is to biology.

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

Like I said socialists believe in that, whereas liberals believe in Individual Liberty. That if the people have the liberty to live their own lives and are well educated, they'll generally make the best decisions for themselves. Whereas socialists believe that we should all do it together through Government Services.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES But rather, it is the job of our society as a whole to find a way around that, so that the direct and indirect damage from drug consumption is minimized. We are social beings, so focusing too much on the individual and ignoring society as a whole can lead to unwished for outcomes.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES Also, i agree on your last wish, but there's also the matter of how far we should let causality go. There are things that don't directly hurt anyone, but indirectly causes ripples of unhealthy effects in society. For an example drug consumption under a prohibitionist regime very often does that, due to that market being left to criminals. Drug consumers thus finance operations which are often very deadly and hurts many people. Are they to be judged? I think not.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES Social-liberal is not the same as socialist. It is just a less individualistic liberalism. A less ideological liberalism, if you will. Socialist and liberal don't have to contradict each other either. The egalitarian liberals and the socialists have a lot in common. What i want isn't that the government produce socially acceptable outcomes, but rather that it's there to make society as a whole do that. That basically means regulating the market. Also...

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

As a liberal myself I see the term "Social-Liberal" as you said, which I take to meaning Socialist Liberal. And liberal to contradict each other. Because they are two different things that you put into one term. As you said you "want government to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives". Wheres liberalism is about Individual Liberty and Equality of Opportunity. Let people live their own lives and not hurt others.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES Socialism doesn't necessarily -have- to go through a government. I consider myself a social-liberal. To me that means i want the gov't to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives. The market i don't care about. Let's have it where we must and where it's good, let's not where we don't and it's not.

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

Through the Central Government not individuals themselves, there's another difference between socialism and liberalism. Liberalism is not about an "Unfettered Market", that would be libertarianism. Two different ideology's. Liberalism is about Maximize Freedom and Responsibility for the Individual as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their Freedom. Big difference.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES No, socialism is about collective action to bring freedom for all. It's a response to the very unfree early capitalist societies. The problem with raw liberalism is that it tries to maintain too many values in one ideology. It's simply not possible to have an unfettered market at the same time as people are treated equal. Socialism puts alot of faith in the state, yes. Why should it not? It is a means to organize society and that's something we need.

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

Not really, liberalism is about well liberty for the individual, they are similar words. Whereas socialism is about collectivism and communitarianism. Can't give people too much liberty or they might make a lot more then others, so we have to take from them, to prevent that. Liberalism is Anti Establishment, whereas socialism puts a lot of faith in the Welfare State, which is a big part of the establishment.

[freedomthrough]

@JohnR22926 I believe your message here can be boiled down to emotional opposition to socialism and has no intellectual basis. There have been SO many debates on SO many theories for the past 100 years and guess what, the "left" (keynesianism) has won many over the "right" (neo-classicism). I agree that a market system (you can't kill it), tempered by appropriate levels of govt regulation and intervention, is the way to go. A market society with socially acceptable outcomes is what we need.