Bang on! While we certainly don't agree with what Hawke did. I'd have to say, giving the capitalists their "nearly" ideal setup has exposed their true colours. Now we need to get our unions back. Properly back!
In the US, the purge of communists and socialists from all major unions in the 1950s set the stage for union complacency in the 1970s. By the time Reagan and Thatcher arrived, there was nobody steering the ship of labor power. Did a similar purge happen in Australian unions in the 1950s?
I'm not sure about unions specifically, but, they did ban the communist party / ideas post WW2, they ultimately failed due to it being deemed unconstitutional but it wouldn't surprise me if it had similar effects on the workers movement.
sort of but not really, Menzies really despised commies and had a national referendum to ban the ideology from Australian politics- it almost succeeded but not quite, and then after it really didn't go too far after, there were some prime ministers that also joined in on the crack-down on commies but afterwards Australia drifted to a more leftward state and got poorer over time only after Howard has the economy flourished.
It's the unresolved problem of our time. Most contries are now neoliberal which leaves many countries in hard competition against each other for market share. But the owners of business and capital will always have the upper-hand, as will those counries whose governments are the most authoritarian. Guess where it goes.
@@ancapcitizen8266 Do you think that socialism is inherently authoritarian? Or that late-stage capitalism will eventually make way for a socialist revolution?? I have no idea what you’re trying to say, or how it relates rationally to the original comment. Enlighten us mate 😂
@@Evan.01 Socialism is inherrently authoritarian, you could actually argue that Socialism is just a different term for "authoritarianism". "Late-stage Capitalism" doesn't exist. OP was trying to blame Capitalism, using the term "Neoliberalism" which itself is basically just a form of Socialism where a small amount of economical freedom and private enterprise is to some form encouraged by the state. He was saying that business-owners always have the upper hand which is incorrect, the state always has the upper hand by simply being the state. Politicians choose to be bought, the politicians that OP probably thinks are "puppets" of the so-called "Capitalist-class" could wipe this "class" in an instant if they wanted to. They just won't do it because they have a reason not to and not because they are being "owned" by anyone.
Can I just say, I’ve been bingeing your content lately. It fucking slaps. Really enjoy your deep dives and perspective especially on Australian politics.
First time I've come across this channel. Within a minute or two of the start of this video, I said to myself, well all that would make perfect sense from a socialist perspective, but this guy is probably just a mainstream moderate liberal centrist. Then I waited to be disappointed. I've seen too many cases where a progressive critique turns into just another excuse for not changing much of anything. But you surprised me! By the end I realized you apparently are quite willing to accept the logical conclusion of your own argument, i.e., the system we have now is dying, and it's dragging us all down with it. Only a radical change will suffice.
Fantastic, absolutely fantastic. So rarely do I see historical materialism done correctly, without moralizing and feel-good bashing of the individuals involved. Even more rarely do I see it done from an Australian perspective, using Australian history, and Australian figures. Banging on this fact (that Neoliberalism was the necessary and logical evolution of social democracy) is so key to understanding how we need to move forward in a world with declining colonial exploits. The crisis of capitalism came in 1973, and capital won. Not because of any individual bad actor, but because that result had been baked in to the very structure of the welfare state. I'm studying PPE at one of the Group of Eight right now, and I wish we had lecturers half as insightful as you. Keep going mate!
Neoliberalism takes "the market will decide" as a gospel. Some degree of deregulation and privatization was necessary, and we saw successful example of that, but neoliberalism in the form was not. And don't discount the role of particular personalities. Without Regan and Gorbachev we might have not seen a fall of the Soviet Union so soon. A less aggressive American president would not have bankrupted USSR so quickly and a more bloodthirsty Soviet General Secretary would have not let the Eastern block fall without a major war.
It's an amusing exercise to imagine what would have been, but as I see it, the video is trying to get across the point that society forges individuals, so, hadn't it been Regan, it would have been someone else, unless things were different 20 years before him and the context that guided his (and plenty of others) political views were different... and for that to happen, things had to be different 20 years before that and so on. Same goes for the USSR, which had been steering towards the right ever since Khrushchev and was anything but bankrupt at the least violent time the USSR had seen. If it wasn't Gorbatchov, it would have been someone else.
this ia juat great man theory, in other words terrible history, also reagan didnt bankrupt the USSR but the chenobyl clean up costs did prevent the economy from growing
@@randomsnow6510just because material conditions generally dictate the flow of history doesn't mean individual decisions don't affect it. Gorbachev could have just not said he would let the eastern bloc go its own way
@@randomsnow6510 It's more of a "dudes who randomly got into poitions of power" theory. Stalin's USSR was very different from Khrustchev's USSR and that would be very different from Beria's USSR. Would Andropov, the head of KGB just watch as the empire crumbles and not issue orders to use the army like the did in Hungary before?
This video gets exactly at the problem I have with the popular narrative about neoliberalism which was premised on the idea that one fine day a group of capitalists and bankers got together to break the labour movement's back. The question that always arose was why? It turns out LTRPF was the reason all along. Kliman's work was the first to introduce me to this solution.
I'm really lost where y'all are getting this idea of a narrative from. I've never heard that, at least not from someone to be taken seriously. I've never heard, vaush or Hasan say NL is bad *because* regan or Thatcher.
Ha! I want to see you living in a socialist country without any of first world capitalist comforts. You wouldn't survive a second without McDonald's and an Iphone.
I think there are several things absent in your analysis. Social Democracy was not in crisis. Yes, corporate profit rates were dropping; however real corporate profits were increasing all throughout the 60s and 70s. The Oil Crisis was not an endogenous factor that broke down the economic supply chain, it was an exogenous factor; thus the fallout it caused was not an inherent problem within social democracy. General prosperity, general productivity and profits all increased under social democracy.
and why exactly is that a good thing, that corporate profits increased? why would this be an indicator of how stable the economy was when increasing profits is quite literally the only responsibility a corporation bears and they will routinely engage in mass layoffs and all manner of otherwise economically destabilizing activities to ensure their short-term growth? especially when the rate of profit contracted as much as it had from 1944-1982, where do you think the steadily increasing profits came from? this is actually no different than saying feudalism did not experience any crises in the late 16th-early 17th century because tax revenues in france, poland-lithuania, russia, and spain all held consistent growth; also that the social upheaval surrounding the 30 years war and collapse of the ming empire was not endogenous to feudalism as it was largely attributable to the little ice age. also fyi capital productivity was contracting at a rate of more than 2% from 1966-1982 and in the same span labor productivity grew at 1/3 of the rate it did from 1982-2010, so your point about productivity in general is also not correct (www.researchgate.net/publication/254455226_Technology_Distribution_and_the_Rate_of_Profit_in_the_US_Economy_Understanding_the_Current_Crisis)
@@phiscz Have you read your own source? It clearly states that labor productivity continuously increased, it was the capital productivity that decreased. And again, your own source clearly states that profits too increased all throughout the discussed period. Layoffs did not occur throughout the 60s and 70s, share of economic prosperity among laborers continuously increased. Wages matched inflation, and surpassed it at times; corporate profits continously increased, and labor productivity increased at a faster rate compared to the rate of decrease of capital productivity. Increased profits came from increased labor productivity, not employee layoffs or wage decreases. In actuality, wages almost nominally never decrease; instead they decrease overtime due to factors such as inflation. This is because what we call "sticky wages". You clearly do not understand the concept of endogenous and exogenous factors. Yes, nothing happens in vacuum - this is obvious - but analysis requires categorization. The Oil Crisis had nothing to do with prior Western Colonization, it was caused by the Yom Kippur War. The US social and political institutions, which shaped the US Economy, was not responsible for decisions the OPEC countries took. The World Economic system did not necessitate a war between the Arab Nations and Israel, claiming it did is just blatantly stupid.
I think the really important point about the oil crisis is that even if it was exogenous, it was able to be as damaging as it was because of the inherent weaknesses of social democracy. Granting these reforms without breaking with capitalism necessitates unsustainable borrowing. The key point is that even if the oil crisis was avoided, ANY shock would have caused this level of crisis. Social democracy, because it fails to break with capitalism, is incredibly vulnerable to economic shocks. So even if the oil crisis wasn’t inherent, this vulnerability is absolutely inherent.
@@macb.t.9918 The crisis is not embedded in capitalism itself? Had there been a social democratic world government for example in 1973, such an economic crisis would not have taken place? And such resource based economic crisises have nothing to do with capitalism? If any supply chain breaks down in any system (be it centrally planned or market based) such types of crises occur. Capital has to exist in order for economies to exist, it seems to me that you guys have a habit of turning capitalism into a scapegoat without understanding the intricacies of economic modeling structural planning.
@@onatdeveci5502 But capitalism is the only system that needs the constant management because of the constant growth tho? You making the constant need to adjust to this crisis to any and all system, you don't have, especially, the necessity of managing and readjusting the economy if not for the factor that the system keeps trying to produce more and more without a limit.
I really started doubting the quality of this video when you summarize the oil embargo as being former colonies being angry at the west. That is not even close to what has happened.
As a Canadian, I had no idea this was what stagflation looked like in Australia. I only know the main political currents of it in Canada and the US. Thank you! This was fascinating.
Excellent analysis. Aside from the myth of trickle down economics, another myth was that privatisation would lead to greater competition, efficiency and lower prices. Instead most privatisation (at least here in Australia) resulted in companies that are essentially monopolies, for which the customer has little choice but to pay "rent". Be good to see a video on how neoliberalism led to "neofeudalism" or increasing oligarchic power.
Trickle-Down economics is a myth inasmuch as no-one advocated for it. Privatisation works only with competition but regulation can be an effective ensurer of efficiency instead. Although that depends on the regulator.
Neoloberalism united the worst of Consumist Capitalism and pseudo-utopic liberalism...and became a dream that later imploded. Thats why it mutated from that to progressivism, then with marxist-leninism added and now practically a battle royale of ideologies for the TOTAL control of the human societies. Neoliberalism is Liberalism and Capitalism in decadence. Because Capitalism is a beast that if you don't regule, will devour you...bet you get that with real coherent rules, not with ideals only. Thats why capitalism still holds...its the only one who stands on a CIRCULAR SYSTEM. But its like Democracy...the problem is not the concept, is who manipulates it.
4:17 "meddling in their affairs" is a really really euphemistic way of phrasing "losing wars against Israel so hard they decide to get butthurt and embargo the west"
lol, the incident he's referring to was in 1973, it was actually Isreal losing at the time, so the US came to the rescue, with aids (as usual), it was a rare risky counter-tactic from KSA and the gulf states, USA has been their greatest ally since KSA was created in the 30s.
He's not advocating for neo-liberalism. He's applied material analysis to demonstrate how neoliberalism was going to be the inevitable response, in a still fundamentally capitalist society, to the contradictions of social democracy. Inevitable probably would've been a better operative word for the title rather than "necessary".
Only the old left says this. The new left participates in it for the purpose of social change. Which is still left wing fundamentally. Changing conditions which are not material ones.
A bunch of conservative oil producing countries conspired to manufacture a crisis that resulted in them gaining 50 years of political dominance? You give them too little credit.
I think the problem is an economic system where profit "stagnation" is a problem. Not constantly decreasing profit, 0 profit or losses. No, the problem is doing only crazy amounts of money instead of *insane* amounts of money. Anywyas, you're fucked if you were born after 1975.
My summary in case anyone likes it: > Reagan and thatcher, weren't the sole responsibles of neoliberalism - The people that voted them were > "Our economic system is contradictory - At a basic level, you've got people who work to make things, and the people who own and sell those things. - Generally both of those people want to make more money or improve their way of life - The worker through higher wages, and the owner through higher profits. - Assuming all else equal, increasing the amount the owner pays in higher wages, will necessarily lower their profits - And conversely, lowering the amount in wages, will necessarily increase profits" - One way workers increase their wages or improve their conditions, - Is by forming a union, - One worker is disposable, - But all of their employees striking, completely blocks the money making of the company > Historically, - As the unions got more wages, - The share of profits in the economy started to fall > Falling profit rates, occur for a number of reasons, - For one, growing share of labor - Two, high corporate tax rates and regulations - Three, the naural tendency for companies to overproduce > "Instead of trying to rid this contradiction in the economy, left and right wing govts tolerated this dynamic - seeing themselves as fair and balanced umpires. - Ones more in the side of the workers, others of the employees" - However, at some point, the owner class, with a lot of power, got tired > Historically, at first, falling rates of profits were good for working people - Then there was an oil crisis - Some middle eastern countries angry with the west, decided to block all oil to the west - Fuel prices skyrocketed - The rates of profits fell even more - "Given the govt ensures and codifies the economic base of the owner class, governments began to roll back pro worker measures" - Workers had won benefits, - Now owners were gaining benefits - This stalemate was unsustainable - Economy wasn't growing and there was high inflation, stagflation - No amount of govt intervention, mediation, could resolve these contradictions - This is "little in term of imagination or answers given" - And supposedly, already we've established an unsustainable system > The owner class took action - Not all planning in a room talking, neither owners or unions, - Rather, everyone in their little groups, watching the system, acted like this - Which is, people acted along class lines, their class' interests - Gradually over months, years - Previously, owners wanted public schools and hospitals, because they could make better businesses in a better environment - Now they wanted no govt in the economy, they saw it as innefficient, and responsible for the falling rate of profit - Didn't want price caps, or public housing, or public anything, nor regulations, etc - They also wanted no unions, because they were propaganda, lobby, force for these things - Just increase owners' profits: trickle down theory - Otherwise they will leave, invest elsewhere. - "Because you can't win international competition being inefficient", was a dumb false way to put it - Because they won't reduce the owners' income, to win that competiton either - There is no international economic competition, there is just a competition for who has the lowest wages, who gives the highest profit to owners > Also this useless govt intervention, just to give more money to the owners, was "social democracy" > "Trying to reconcile irreconcilable differences (what social democracy would've been trying to do) in a system predicated upon the profit of one particular class, will always give more leeway and power, to that particular class
Stellar video. I myself was researching the shift from the huge socialist support of the '60 to the reaction of the' 70, and come to similar ideas, but you made it better and clear cut. Amazing.
"(...)our economic system is one that requires infinite expansion" yeah man, thats the problem. There is no such thing as infinite expension, yet, we built a world around it
Every thing in life is centered or expects infinite expansion, animals whould take over the world and expand to other planets ad infinitum if they could thats the point of life, survival and therefore expansion
This is so good! Many leftists are lazy to wave off neoliberalism as individual movements and actions, and I am so glad you went against this "great man theory." I love how you discussed the failures of social democracy to trying to "reconcile" irreconcilable class differences
Some economic policies work for specific countries in specific times under specific circumstances. Neoliberalism had its place in the 80s and 90s, but it’s not the economic philosophy we need today in the 21st century. It’s gotten to the point where both the right AND the left reject neoliberalism now.
I was so delighted when you started speaking and I heard your accent. Our local example is so instructive; more comrades should be motivated to learn from it!
australia’s a really interesting example because it was the unions and labor party that were at the vanguard of neoliberalism, which i think can be very elucidating!
Hi! Great video on neoliberalism. Greetings from Argentina. We experienced something similar here. We had a coup that imposed neoliberal policies and dismantled our economy. After that period ended and democracy returned, we soon had a social-democratic president, Menem, who liberalized the economy significantly despite being from a social-democratic party. Very similar to what you discuss in your video. Keep up the good work!
Hey, I consider myself a part of the religious right, and I think greed in all forms is a sin, but I could use some help in making sense of the argument in the video. I've been trying to question the assumptions I learned many years ago about the way the economy works. I very much appreciate videos like this because I am trying to escape the limits of libertarian or free-market ideology, but I can't help but feel that critiques such as these are shot through with their own ideology. Would someone be able to explain to me some of the more basic assumptions of this video such as why splitting the economy into owners and workers is a contradiction. Frankly, I find it hard to view owners and workers as discrete, separate categories. Also, why is social democracy the gold standard? I get that the idea is it's a politically free arrangement that will seek to benefit even the least-well-off members of the community by investment in "schools and hospitals," but this seems to be playing the same materialist game as capitalism, insisting that the only way we can improve our lives is in minimizing pain, and generally enjoying oneself (not that that is an evil).
you're answering your own questions this is a bait comment to start an argument. "I find it hard to view owners and workers as discrete, separate categories" yes they are not discrete, seperate categories. "why is social democracy the gold standard?" its not. dont waste your time with this just keep being a religious guy go read the bible again or something. read some gnostics or the torah maybe
Those inefficient things they bitched about weren't that inefficient and arguably companies are just as if not more inefficient and bureaucratic than governments were, as anyone who works in a corporation can tell. In fact, modern governments have aped private enterprise in how they work and have become less efficient and more bureaucratic because of this.
The fall of the USSR gave time to capitalism (both politically and economically). Otherwise, the 2008 crisis would have happened about 10 years earlier.
The problem is that capitalism is just monopolistic and uses regulations to prevent competition to entrenched players. Australian economics works but it’s not a moral system, and without a healthy homogenous idealistically united population. Then subversion takes root and you just get unhealthy notions like liberalism and multiculturalism where people are just supposed to interact on economic terms. Reality is some strong groups with strong tradition will do well and the ensuing mass migration is really just a wealth redistribution to big business away from the native population, who just gets high housing prices and less wage bargaining power.
I'm coping so hard with my running water, electricity, 1500+ calories a day diet, and my family who is still alive despite not supporting the current leader. Bro I jusss wish we could be comuniss
@@InfoWarMod1776 if capitalism was so great, why are 78% of americans working paycheck to paycheck? to be comuniss you need to join syndicalist labor unions and seize the means of production. liberal democracy will never disable capitalism, fck, not even social democracy would disable it, no government will, only the workers may.
I clicked because I was flabbergasted by a title and what might have been behind it. What I got was solid material and historical analysis. Good job! 👍
Fantastic video, well done. Your prescription was presented in the title, and you legitimately did not provide more prescriptions to justify your original belief, but instead provided descriptions on the history and the materialist analysis of that history to prove your argument.
Pretty good. I really appreciate the systems approch to your analysis. I have one major disagreement (for lack of a better word). You repeatedly point out the unresolvable conflict within liberalism, but don't seem to 'get' that liberalism absolutely depends on managing/balancing that conflict... Not "solving" it. Liberalism is a dynamic system, which is why it was so good at creating real progress. There are inherent conflicts within it, and that's where the adaptability comes from. Liberalism is an approach for managing those conflicts... Which is why liberals like me tend to be quite concerned with processes instead of just endpoints. It may seem very odd to folls who have a more utopian POV. And I'm probably doing a bad job explaining it. But to actual liberals, those conflicts aren't really bad things. It goes bad when one "side" gains too dominant a position, and especially when people forget there is a balance which requires actively maintaining. Which is why neoliberalism is actually pretty illiberal.
this is probably because from a leftist perspective, society's makeup of a worker-owner class system is that of an oppressive one, and the competing interests are less of an accepted feature, but a problem which can only result in workers getting fucked over, in the attempts to amend it.
Came for the assumption I was gonna yell at a neolib edgelord, stayed for the excellent Marxist breakdown. You should have way more subscribers dude. Solidarity from a New Zealander who used to do MUCH WORSE similar videos
Ive been trying to convince others of this for years and you put it really concisely. Great job! Social democracy leaves the job of creating a fairer society half finished
Hey adu, great video, really well set out. I will admit that I very much embraced the “neoliberalism is the source of all evil” viewpoint before watching your video. I wanted to point out a spelling mistake you made. At 8:14, you wrote “toe the line” in the captions. It’s actually meant to be “toe the line”, because you are keeping your toe on the predetermined line, rather than somehow trying to drag it away. Thanks for a great video!
You forgot the Blairites in the UK. Chose fabian communism. also you preposed the reverse of great man theory... aka Terrible man theory. 0:00 at the start of the video. I highly approve.
I think any serious man or woman doesn't use this didact theory of big men but accept and acknowledge it's also the people around then and the interests of a group. Aka Cheney
classical liberals are the liberals before the XX century and those who claim to support it in the modern world, neoliberals are the chicago school economists like milton fridman and those who were implementing it like pinochet, thatcher, raegan, the libs is a vague term that refers to both of these things, but also to the social-liberals, and the term social-liberals also refers to 2 different things, one thing is socially(culturally) liberal as opposed to socially(culturally) conservative, and the other thing is economic social-liberals, who along with the social-democrats are influenced by keynesean economics. in the US the democratic party is in both deffinitions social-liberal, tho atleast since clinton there was also a certain neo-liberal influence within the democratic party, which in the US before clinton mainly came from the republican party
Awesome video! And that analysis was very based also that is tragic that labour party attacks against the unions. The unions are much the better force to change society a better place. And as an anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist i do always admired that when the unions seized the worker place for the workers direct control.🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Good video, my biggest problem with neoliberalism is the sale of banks and public utilities as this massive cost increases to both workers and small buisiness .Today politicians do not have the assets to help make deep changes as in the Whitlam era and have deliberately weak oversights for the owner class.
Banks? As for public utilities. The issue is not who owns them but whether they work and prices are low. With good regulation, which you would need to be fair, this can be done.
good video. its very important to study this point in history. Many well intentioned social democrats (bernie sanders types) will point to the pre neoliberal era as something we need to go back to not realizing that no amount of reform can fix the contradictions of capitalism. Reforms may create short term gains, like what we had in the 20th century, but time and time again when things get rough the owner class and the government will collude to strip away all of those gains. I will always support any gains for working people but even when those reforms are achieved more work must be done to continue the development of class consciousness and a well educated, politically developed working class citizenry.
You seem like the type of guy who can cover a historical event really well. Look up the West Virginia Mine Wars, Matewan Massacre, Battle of Blair Mtn. I know you’re an Aussie but in America this is some of the strongest and bloodiest labor struggles in the history of the country that is swept under the rug, and as a native in West Virginia, not taught in our public schools as much as it should be! Check it out
excellent material analysis of why noeliberalism came to be it's true, we should be more critical than attribute our current material conditions to a handful of individuals who were the result of it, we can't move forward without knowing what's what we are dealing with, this will not be solved by putting "the right people" to make the right decisions for us, the working class
People's quality of life wasn't improving and unions weren't going to fix it. But we can still call reaganite evangelical nightmares and the monstrous thatcherite "there is no society...etc. etc" positions detrimental to humanity in a way that was unique to their administrations.
Neoliberalism and it’s emphasis on trade led to the world getting vastly wealthier at a quicker rate. It’s reforms worked at the time and for 20-30 years. We shouldn’t be surprised that it didn’t work forever. What system has lasted indefinitely? The reason we have a democracy is so that we can change policies to be in tune with the issues of the time. The issues of the time have changed and so should the policy.
I wonder how much of this misunderstanding is great man theory of history applied to an age directly after most of the great men were culled by world wars.
Thatcher in 2002, in response to a question regarding her greatest political achievement- "Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds."
btw, this is very similar to what happened in the late USSR, where the party bureaucracy has organized against the rest of society and did a self-coup of sorts (there were multiple factions that tried to do this in different ways, but the overall direction was similar across the board). current Russian/Ukrainian/Kazakh corporations are largely pieces of privatized soviet regulatory agencies and industrial complexes.
Been thinking about it for a while, thanks for the perspective, it helps a lot to understand I'm thinking this could all be fixed if all employees were shareholders and not people who have nothing to do with the company But I don't think there's a chance of that happening, unless we tear down the economy and start over
I don't like the Marxism in the video. (Maybe not technically marxism but definively close enough) 1) Fundamental "contradiction" of our society: A company has to chose how much to pay to each worker. All things being equal if worker A gets a higher salary worker B will get less. Is this also a fundamental "contradiction" in our society? Are we calling all conflicts of interest (which plague ~90% of our human interactions) "fundamental contradictions". Or can you only use that term when talking about social class? That seems pretty dogmatic. 2) This is just marxism rebranded: The use of "owner class" and "worker class" as the fundamental units of analysis. The use of the phrase "given the government ensures and codifies the economic base of the owner class". I'm not sure how this guy wanted to come across in the video. But his real position is not really revealed untill the end of the video and it seems to me a bit like he's trying not to scare away the viewer with all the marxism so he keeps it down a little and it seems misleading. 3) Imperialism is apparently just a funny quirk of our economic system: Because a non-capitalist country has never ever ever invaded another one. 4) The weird moment of stagflation: In addition to the oil shock, stagflation was caused by governments and central banks putting too much money into the economomy year after year. This is presented as just a natural consequence of social democracy not resolving the "fundamental contradictions". This is not true. Money is put in the economy by government programs, yes. Many of them you could argue are "worker victories", yes. But as long as you are taking enough money away of the economy (i.e. taxes or interest rate hikes) no inflation (or stagnation) will happen. This was a failure of government and of the economic theory of the time. There is probably more that could be said here (I'm not really sure where he was going with stagflation) but portraying this as just "social democracy" failling by necessity is misleading. 5) He gets plus points for trying not to do a shallow analysis of politics. He looses points because he failed at it the moment he decided a marxist perspective was really all that was needed.This video just seems to reflect the idea that marxism is the correct theory of everything
Trickle down is just what it sounds like. A trickle. Before their scheme, the tap was open. Trickle is as described. They told us what they were doing while tying it to a lie that said the opposite.
Very good point! Now we are starting to witness more and more societal turmoil on the back of faltering neoliberal management, just as our grandparents did with the collapse of social democracy. Only this time, we must mobilize political mass forces to the highest degrees possible and not cower before new attempts of reconciliation.
Your description of market dynamics here just doesn't hold up. Business owners aren't 'this one guy, Jeff Bezos', they have to balance trying to keep wages low to be able to produce their merchandise more cheaply and remain competitive with other companies for their laborers. And yes, products being more cheap *is* often the same as making society as a whole richer.
Although I'm still not sure I understand the meaning of the title, I have to say this is the freshest take I've heard yet on the development of neoliberalism. I too, often find that those Jacobin-Corbynists-Green New Deal types only know how to express their critique of neoliberalism by nostalgizing for what came before it without realizing or being able to admit that it's the fundamental crisis of social-democracy that is responsible for it's rise. I'd love to know more about this falling rate of profit thing talked about in the video and the contextual importance of the oil crisis if anyone hase anymore sources on that !
I would argue that moneyed interests were the driving force behind these changes. Anyone who wanted to be in power had to cater to them, left or right.
Could you elaborate about olof palme embracing neoliberalism.In all the coverage i've seen of him he seemed like he was on the complete opposite in terms of economics and only after his deaths did large scale privatisations happen.
