When Will Neoliberalism Collapse? w/ Gary Gerstle 

The people of the US have obviously not suffered enough yet.

The people in the US are beneficiaries of the neoliberal world order. Places like Switzerland also have populations which like the neoliberal system.

Chile was a birthplace of Neoliberalism, it will be it's downfall!

@@gracelynne3918 obviously not

As Jacobin notes regularly, the people largely have had enough but suffer under minority rule (i.e., the military-industrial complex). Voting provides little real choice, and there aren't coordinated efforts of enough people to force at least the choice of which direction the current powers want to hedge (barbarism or at least social democracy).

You see more than the writer and most anyone. We are on a slide that no one knows how to get off and those who are benefiting are just pushing for more speed.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

were their no community colleges back then? Here's a hint for you and your kids when they come of age, if the highest paid individual at the college is the football coach don't go their. And if the highest paid employee in the state is the same football coach, definitely don't go there.

And here I am glued to the world is falling apart channel

Learn to code...

The jacobin interviewers tend to be great, but Jen is incredible!!

I always think to myself in these interviews, that the scholars have to be impressed with Jen's incredible perspicacity and high level intellectual engagement with the topics. Even a hardened neolib like my father had to admit how quality these talks are.

Jen? More like Gem! 💎

We Socialists are adamantly AGAINST the Liberal world order (as Biden & co put it). Why do some of us support the Democrats while claiming to be socialists? Does this generation not understand what Neo-Liberalism is & how ANTI_SOCIALIST it is? The Democrats are the Bourgeoise, the Democrats are the aristocracy, we are the peasants.

It's been 10 months now... did you read the book?

It's funny to read the commentary as "interesting" and divorced from the real consequences of the collapse of society due to NEOLIBERALISM.Everyone has "skin" in this game and no one on the planet will escape the inevitable greed NEOLIBERALISM engendered.

Yeah, a lot of idiots like Tucker Carlson have misused the term "Neoliberal" for years. He calls AOC a Neoliberal, which is ignorant and outrageous. Most Americans on the political Right have no idea that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were Neoliberals.

Yup

@kevinstaninger, Hey buddy, I too am confused about what the term “Neoliberalism” mean. Would you enlighten me on that? If Neoliberalism represents conservatism why do they called it “Neoliberalism?” Can you or anybody else explain that to me?

@@truthsower4560 it's an economic model leaning heavy on deregulation, pushing "free market" especially through privatization and austerity with state influence in the economy. So anti-union is an example of this practice and what Reaganomics brought to our government.

@@truthsower4560 Originally, the term Liberal would refer to "Classical Liberalism" - which is traditionally on the Right of politics - advocating small government, low taxes, individual freedom, and personal responsibility. Basically, Classical Liberalism places an emphasis on the individual rather than the collective. At some point the term Liberal came to be adopted by the Progressive Left of politics - with the entirely opposite view that the needs and concerns of society (the collective) take precedent over the rights and personal desires of the individual - it's where we get concepts like "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child".

capitalism says live under your means and you will grow wealthy. The earth says live under your means and it mat survive.

@TheDrewSaga Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism focuses on how religious asceticism and capitalism coexist and thrive by virtue of the presence of each other. Weber analyzes the four major sects of Protestantism and the different paths their respective theological evolution took. Weber makes the case that though each sect took a different path, they each arrived at some form of asceticism and that, further, this asceticism commonly found within the differing denominations is the perfect foil to the spirit, as Weber defines, of capitalism. Weber’s analysis of asceticism and capitalism makes it easy to see how today’s powerful business class can find a measure of self-justification for their exploitative and horrific actions. In other words, since they had lived below there means, they could re-invest. then there is Benjamin Franklin's values of thrift, hard work, education.

I like that term "civic religion" it reflects the moral stance towards poverty rather than a logical one to alleviate the problem of inequality.

Oh that horrible capitalism brining the wealthiest era in history and the highest standard of living in the world. But because people like you dream of utopias which would never exist and think it’s still not enough we will end up with communism and everyone getting as poor as those wonderful non capitalists societies like North Korea

@TheDrewSaga capitalism is the reason slavery was abolish but try again communist

When piglets fly. 🐷

Tfw

I thought the airwaves were very vulgar in the 90s; but my dad was a right winger who watched Fox news non stop. Bill O'Reilly was saying horrible vulgar things about women, gay people, and minorities to millions of people everyday. I also remember most people saying it was no big deal and we must tolerate all opinions. Moderate Germans allowed Nazis to kill millions of people because they tolerated all opinions.

Interesting comment, the one issue I contend with is that in todays world its VERY easy to tune out what you don't like. The mainstream media talks a lot about its concern that 'people dialogue within their own bubble', but thats mostly because its not THEIR bubble. I've been around social media since BEFORE there was social media, and like anything there is a learning curve. There is certainly belligerence, etc., but I've found discussions on social media have improved markedly over the years. Facebook dumped down conversations from the old message boards, then it got better, then worse as more political people got on it as well as media, but now its gotten better again. If you know your history then the public airwaves should NEVER have been that decent, it was just fabricated that way. As the neoliberal order was shoved down our throats, the media was silent on what it actually cost us. The PC stuff I've managed to avoid simply by not using twitter. So on youtube I really ONLY see the guys complaining about it, its almost like women use twitter to complain, guys use youtube and they meet on facebook! Either way, I consider it a baptism by fire. Keep in mind that the 90's were brutal as neoliberalism was what basically dismantlied the soviet union and basically set it up to wait for Putin.

@@mikearchibald744 And here we are now......thanks Neo-Liberalism! Thanks a lot! Because now, in my honest opinion, we NEED Neo-Nazis in order to keep this Neo-Liberalism garbage going! The Soviet Union would have been a FAR SUPERIOR alternative in comparison to what Russia is right now! -_-

What is political correctness exactly? Often, I see that those most opposed to it have never been the object of the opinions that it objects to. Just a thought.

To a lot of people including myself saw it for what it was, a corrupt shift of wealth to the top and F.... the rest of our community. It was a give away when they called it "Trickle Down Economics" An excellent video on the change of corporate culture reflected this from a broad view to a narrow one, since 1981, is on you tube. Even our reality tv promoted this survival of the fittest. A disgusting return to the Roman colosseum on tv.appealing to our darker side.

I agree. I found it accessible (without a degree in philosophy).

So, what you are saying is you're uneducated but not stupid?

I think one of the biggest steps to undo neo-liberalism in the US is actually to get rid of the law banning secondary strikes. It's notable that one of the few countries in Europe where neo-liberalism never fully took hold is the same one where secondary strikes are still completely allowed: France. The ban on secondary strikes greatly isolates the unions and spreads an idea of atomization. Something like the workers of Amazon striking to get AC in the trucks of UPS has a power of solidarity among workers that should not be underestimated. These days the boundaries between companies are also increasingly porous so it makes no sense for this law to be there other than to break up solidarity among workers. Many like to say Germany is a worker's country but it does have many bans on unions and also bans secondary strikes. In terms of wages, bargaining power and political influence of Unions Germany has nothing on France. France also still has a strong communist party that managed to hold on to it's bond with the unions and still is a force to be reckoned with in French elections. Of course it's not immune to neo-liberalism as it is part of the EU and Macron is a fervent neo-liberal but outside the Nordics France has resisted neo-liberalism better than any other. I think part of that is because it mainly came from the US and UK and France always had a somewhat antagonistic relationship with them which meant the communists found allies with nationalists rather than enemies as was the case in the UK.

I think American socialists should learn some things from their French counterparts. Mainly about the importance of forging connections with nationalists and make socialism something patriotic to do.

Don't hold your breath

Lol, so the question becomes, how much of the optimism was ignorance and how much was intentional baiting?

What hellscape will you replace it with? Dictatorship of the proletariat?

I think we need whatever comes next to be more conscious of global resources and impact rather than "how do I speed-run becoming a monopoly" like we've been doing for the last 14 years.

Like Biden's & his guy said on CNN yesterday about the war in Ukraine (& sanctions): We (the USA & Biden admin) are at war with Russia to protect the (Neo) Liberal World Order. We actual socialists aren't for the Liberal world order, we are against it.

Agree. I remember a Robert Reich documentary where he basically said “something happened in the 70s.” This is also a lot more clear than David Harvey’s book I read on the topic.

Knbc run luckey

' The End of American Empire Is Her '

Completely agree. Top notch!

was it in hypernormalization or where was it?

IT'S collapse can't happen quick enough but it doesn't deal with the darker side of our humanity that caused the rise of NEOLIBERALISM.

for two good resources which can illuminate the concept, there's David Harvey's A Brief Introduction to Neoliberalism, as well as Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine for two retrospectives on what neoliberalism is

Those books are both great. I think of it as government turning over all the work of “promoting the general welfare” to profit-seeking private actors. This short video gives a concise analysis: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aQnTLd1_uCc.html

"Monetize, Privatize, Militarize' -- Dr Cornel West. Neoliberalism's simplest definition.

Pascal Robert often describes the 50 year neoliberal counterrevolution on sublation magazine, black agenda report and this is revolution podcast

OK, Liberal got out of fashion and it was reinvented in a retro version but with neons to make it more attractive. It is common in capitalist societies to recycle even the filthiest things as long as they are profitable. It is therefore consistent with the mission of Chicago School to advance to most glittering neonic titles as well as shock mechanism of poverty and oppression production. We need to re-examine this things, “Neo”, “New,” etc. Is it possible to read them as “counterrevolution?” Neoliberal pops out when more radical alternative (to Soviet model) movements were emerging (Latin America). New Deal pops out when Thomas and Debb were pulling workers and masses in the streets. The “neo” is always brought in to renew the misunderstood terms of the social contract.

You just asked the big question! As the economic failure of the US deepens, I suspect we'll continue to see an increasing attempt by the state to institute control in a failed attempt to stop it. The wildcard here is the technological revolution. He talks about the rise of personal computing as if it was something that largely happened in the past. More likely, we are watching as it continues to accelerate in it's growth. At some point in the next few decades, the rate of technological change will become so rapid, it will become impossible to predict what the world will look like from one moment to the next.

The problem is the fixation of freedom of money even if it reduces the freedom of people.

@@lubricustheslippery5028 Yes and a few people are free to be extremely rich, while many people are free to be poor

i prefer to see the end of gas huffing which has paved over a full 1% of the USA and is far more destructive

@@AWildBard How is THAT freedom?! Are you saying that "I" have the right to be poor forever?! Well......do I have the right to be rich instead?! I'll give you a hint: NO!!! -_-

Christopher Lasch's book, Revolt of the Elites, explains this in great detail.

Neoliberalism includes both Republicans and Democrats. It is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with economic liberalism and free-market capitalism. It is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.

Nuclear war between whom? India and Pakistan? China and India? since they and the rest of the brics are further along on their Mercantile Nationalist project and ready to pounce on one another for a drink of water i would say yes.

WHO KNOWS. Its a frightening prospect because on a global scale that we created while rapeing the planet, the dystopia isn't a good place to think about.

It may, but that's no reason for us to live in the prison of Neoliberalism forever. Better to risk something to achieve freedom than to cower in chains forever. At any rate, the borders/rivals already existed- between Neoliberal empire and the territories it had not yet conquered.

Closed off social bubbles and extreme arrogance.

"why has it been so hard for people like the Clintons or Obama to see the obvious?" because gas huffers like to huff

@@jackiepie7423 my cynical and perhaps my realistic view was that they were picked out and designed not to be able to see that era had shifted and the vision from the 1980s and 1990s was over. It died with the Dot-Com bubble in the early 2000s and more so in 2008. The other part of it was that they figured there was enough money to be had that they and their offspring would be immune to the outrageous fortune and precarity that we the unwashed masses have to face. Being blind to it meant more money to them in the long run. Obama is worth $70M and family wealth double that, Bush is $57M, Bill and Hillary is $120M, Mitch and his wife is $54M, Forbes puts Nancy's worth in 2022 at $135M, and Schumer is worth $69M. Chelsea Clinton is worth $30M. Woot!

​@@eottoe2001 The USA is 5% of this worlds population and consumes 25% of this worlds oil. it has been greedily huffing gas since the 1940's. that was manageable so long as it was the swing producer, but it lost that crown in the 70's when we hit peak oil. everything since then has been about bumming enough scratch to get one more fix. we have had 50 years to get out of this mes and once again today gas huffers find they can not afford their habit blaming everyone in the world but themselves

@@jackiepie7423 can't recall the title of the book but the professor who wrote it pointed out that most of the right wing was paid for by big oil and had been since the 1930s. Fred Koch made his money from building refineries. The Pews owned Sunoco. The Duponts made their chemicals from oil. The Scaife family make part of their fortune from oil like the Bush family. They are still paying for the right. (I drove by Lake Powell last week and people still can't get it through their heads that there is global warming. The lake is mostly gone.)

i think he’s saying the new left used neoliberal anti statist framing to form their conclusions about society. i think it’s opposite what you’re saying

@@VincentTroia Yes that might be. I think it's a symbiosis and works both ways. However, personally I do believe the tendency of neoliberalism to use the new left was stronger than the other way around. One important reason is that the new left was already there. Capitalism recognized that things like self expression and counter cultures in general could be commodified. So the new left generation literally bought into the commodified cosmopolitan world of neoliberalism. Adam Curtis showed this quite well in Century of the Self.

Disagree, Reagan compromised with the Democrats. Democrats wanted higher spending, Reagan wanted lower taxes. Both got their way.

It needs to happen!!! When and ONLY WHEN USA finally collapses will the world be totally free from this EVIL EMPIRE OF SATAN

Not really. That was just an arguably natural reaction to fall of USSR. What was 'the left' supposed to do?

How did you see China at that time?

@@oliverkwok8782 thank you very much for your question. Honestly in those days, the 70’s, the USSR was the main focus. I didn’t spend much time on China. They were so far behind us and dealing with so many internal problems. Plus I don’t remember much information coming out of China then. I do remember thinking China as being a major player and that one day they could be a possible threat. But I did not see them becoming the huge economy or the super power that they have become. But then in the 70‘s I did not know that the US along with the UK and others would de-industrialize and ship a huge part of its industrial capacity to China. Nor at that time did I see that America would lose so much power and prestige. I didn’t see that coming until about the mid to late 90‘s. But thanks again for the question, it was fun to take myself back to that time and remember my thoughts.

​@@daqt6079Where did you draw the idea of the impending collapse of the USSR? The pivot to China in 1974 and a sort of containment of the USSR by non-military means indicated that the US wants to foster a counter-force to the USSR, so I would consider this a starting point of the Soviet decline, although one could argue that the USSR has killed itself without external help.

More like the new left became the old right.

How did he do that? Neoliberalism was never an ideology of the Left. The so called "New Left" adopted the Neoliberal/Global Corporatist agenda.

@@ivandafoe5451 I wouldn't say that Neoliberalism represents the "old Right" any more than it fits the traditional Left. Neoliberalism grew out of the rise of the USA as the center of power and the destruction of traditional (old world) social structures (monarchy and aristocracy) and the ascent of the Bourgeoisie (the professional middle class) to the apex of power - with an individual's personal "net worth" determining their place in the social hierarchy rather than traditional social class structures.

I would argue we have feudalism now in the form of the gig economy - the feudalism lord if capitalism, you are wholely owned property of the lord Capitalism and you have no rights. Which is ironic cos feudal peasants had a lot of rights, that's why feudalism ended - not for the benefit of the parents.

@@piccalillipit9211 that’s not really true because in feudalism the relationship was between serf and landlord; in what we have now its a relationship between workers and supranational public-private partnerships. Society isnt being organized based upon serf and landlord, which is a relatively decentralized system compared to this particular stage of “managerial capitalism”. This stage is characterized by super-conglomerates and international banks which are more powerful in many ways than nations, while also being closely partnered with and dominating of nations (including the US oligarchy). Government is quickly becoming a decrepit tool which insulates the populace from the Corporate State while also supporting its policy objectives. Its becoming the enforcement tool of policy set by the corporate ruling class for their own class interests across the globe.

@@ultravioletiris6241 - If you look at it from a structuralist perspective then yes what you say is technically true. I'm looking at it from a psychological perspective and a systems perspective. it does not matter in practical terms if you master is a man sitting in a massive house or the Uber app or the tracking app that Amazon use on its employees - its the lack of control you have over your life and the degree of pernicious control an "other" has over you. In real practical terms, there is little difference between an Amazon employee and a peasant. Sure you have the "right" to move - I tell Americans to leave America all the tim e - 99% say "I cant afford it" ergo you are bonded to the land.

@@piccalillipit9211 no, you’re explicitly *NOT* making a systems analysis. The systems analysis is what i explained. If youre going to conflate “serf” as a term with *anytime a “pernicious other has control over you”* then people have always been serfs by that definition, as long as they have lived in hierarchical societies. If serf is simply being a subject to a control system then people have always been serfs. This could be useful colloquially but academically *there are different terms for different forms of subject.* Its why there is a difference between sl@ves and serfs as terms. They mean different things even though they both indicate subjectification by an authority.

@@ultravioletiris6241 - NO yours was not a systems analysis. A systems analysis analyses the _systems_ and procedures in place and the relationship between nodes, it is the "arrows between the boxes" on a flowchart. The names IN those boxes formes the STRUCTURE, what you are doing is describing the STRUCTURE it is a structural analysis. In a systems analysis, you can replace "landlord" with "corporation" with "computer" and nothing changes, the system still functions exactly the same. In a Structural analysis if you replace "landlord" with "corporation" the structure has changed. Please don't lecture me on this. I'm a published author on psychology and the collapse of civilisations. "then people have always been serfs by that definition, " For almost all of history yes this is 100% correct. That is literally the point. Serfdom never went away, only the titles were changed and the conditions got worse. Serfdom was abolished in Russia starting in 1861. The lords were paid out the "value" of each serf and the served were forcibly "freed" and they owed that debt to the government. So they lost their rights as a serf but also lost their freedom as they now owed a massive unpayable debt to the government... Very much like student debt in the USA today. You need to read Historical Materialism, you will see that for the vast vast majority of people on earth, nothing has changed in the last 1000 years. America thinks it does not have monarchs, of course, it does, they are called Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. In the 1940's and the 1960's people were sent to die in wars against their will - and thats NOT serfdom??? The only question is the degree of freedom and self-determination. I peaked in the 1950'sand 60's for white people. And its back down to a level BELOW literal medieval serfdom for 40% of America in 2022.

for me it also says ten, but i can see four

You have not been deemed worthy.

They'll be mostly spam

i get a lot of this all over YT. breeds paranoia, but there's probably a perfectly reasonable technoexplanation. plus they want to kill us all.

You tube censors comments all the time. I'd say at least 1/3. I know that my comments have been censored in the past