What are some alternatives to Neoliberalism? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14829841
Everyone on PoFo, the media, and news articles are all talking about how horrible neoliberalism is. And I agree. But no one is talking about any alternatives! Everyone just keeps on complaining about how horrible neoliberalism is but isn't offering anything different. What are some good alternatives to neoliberalism?
#14829848
Oxymandias wrote:Everyone on PoFo, the media, and news articles are all talking about how horrible neoliberalism is. And I agree. But no one is talking about any alternatives! Everyone just keeps on complaining about how horrible neoliberalism is but isn't offering anything different. What are some good alternatives to neoliberalism?


There is just one good alternative.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image



Peace, freedom, socialism. An alliance of workers farmers and solders working together for the good of all and every lamp post in Westminster hung with Tories, Blairites and Liberals under which the people will dance and prance and sing.

Full employment, free education, mines, factories, warehouses crammed with good of all kinds to improve the lives of working people from lands end to john o'groats. Banks, churches and prisons burned to the ground and a momentum officer on every corner omnipotently watching over the people and making sure they do not stray from the one true path and carefully noting down any mischief that he notices.

Image
#14829854
Everyone on PoFo, the media, and news articles are all talking about how horrible neoliberalism is. And I agree. But no one is talking about any alternatives! Everyone just keeps on complaining about how horrible neoliberalism is but isn't offering anything different. What are some good alternatives to neoliberalism?


Just to put this out there, not that I necessarily agree with it, but I've heard not terrible arguments that neoliberalism is not really all that coherent a thing. Apparently, the argument goes, it's original use was one group of liberals trying to distance themselves from another group for political gain by calling themselves neoliberals to contrast themselves with the paleoliberals and tried to give positive feeling to the term without actually being ideologically distinct from each other. Afterwards some on the liberal left (social democrats, progressives, etc.) used it as a negative epithet against more right wing liberals. As the argument goes neoliberalism is just the aspects of liberalism that social democrats and progressives don't like so they compartmentalize it as a separate thing as if it's not a necessary consequence of their own ideologies.

Moving beyond that, what I think of when I hear the term is basically a conservative approach to the social safety net (either not expanding it or shrinking it somewhat), openly globalist foreign policy, and a sort of more establishment "feel" in the context of american politics. The alternatives are basically every other political ideology in existence and various forms of liberalism as well. For instances social democrats would expand the system and act as if they aren't perpetuating the liberal global system just because they avoid open violence a bit more (though I suspect they'd still actually continue most of the violence through back doors.)
#14830322
Oxymandias wrote:@AFAIK

God, that sounds great! I have read alot about Keynesianism but I haven't seen this idea! Thank you for the information!

@One Degree

Can you further describe your idea? I don't think I understand.


We have this weird idea that our lives should be based upon economics. (I blame the Communists :D ).
Our lives should be based on how we want to live. This is what Democracy actually means. This can only be achieved with relatively small populations. Our goal should be to allow as much diversity as possible, but that can not work with huge populations. All you end up doing is giving one group priority over another.
Therefore, separate but equal is the best alternative for all. We then need a world 'coalition ' dedicated to peaceful cooperation without internal interference. I don't need to like how you live to cooperate with you on peaceful coexistence. Capitalism wants everyone to be the same to meet their goals, not yours. Any ideology based upon economics will be undemocratic.
#14830332
Oxymandias wrote:@One Degree

So basically a millet system except laws would only be applied to city states?


Yes, but today, it's difficult for people to understand that race, religion, etc. do not have to be the difference between them. They will always go to these arguments because they view the world through individuals rather than communities, and therefore they totally miss the real point.

Edit: several posters have accused be of refusing to defend my ideology. They do not understand why I withdraw. They always demand the equivalent of defending Christianity strictly from a pagan viewpoint.
They are different systems. How my system affects individuals is totally irrelevant. The discussion needs to be which system provides the greatest good for the most people, not whether it is racist. I withdraw when I see the total disconnect.
#14830348
We have this weird idea that our lives should be based upon economics.


It's not about whether or not our lives should be based on economics but that they inevitably are because it's economics that produces our food, shelter, and general ability to survive in the world. Even the most primitive societies are reliant on the primitive economics of cooperation in their tribe. You can't just decide to not have the thing that gives you the ability to even survive as a species much less produces literally every single tool, comfort, and entertainment without literally withdrawing yourself to a deserted island by yourself.
#14830349
mikema63 wrote:It's not about whether or not our lives should be based on economics but that they inevitably are because it's economics that produces our food, shelter, and general ability to survive in the world. Even the most primitive societies are reliant on the primitive economics of cooperation in their tribe. You can't just decide to not have the thing that gives you the ability to even survive as a species much less produces literally every single tool, comfort, and entertainment without literally withdrawing yourself to a deserted island by yourself.

I did not say we should eliminate it. I said it should not be our primary purpose.
#14830352
And I'm saying it can't not be our primary "purpose" without eliminating it.

I put purpose in quotes because it's not that the economy is our purpose in existence but that it imposes itself into the center of our lives because it is where we get the ability to survive at all and function as a society. We have no particular purpose in existence.
#14830359
mikema63 wrote:And I'm saying it can't not be our primary "purpose" without eliminating it.

I put purpose in quotes because it's not that the economy is our purpose in existence but that it imposes itself into the center of our lives because it is where we get the ability to survive at all and function as a society. We have no particular purpose in existence.

And I strongly disagree. My purpose is to enjoy my loved ones and just being alive. The stuff I have has no affect on that other than what I willingly give it. People managed to live and eat for a long time without the word economics even existing. I feel very sorry for anyone who believes an improved economy is our major goal. It is a nice second or third tier goal to have.
#14830365
The stuff you have isn't the economy. Just because the word economics wasn't coined yet doesn't mean there wasn't still an economy. We are all dependent on society for our food and shelter and no amount of shifting focus to how you like your family will change that.

Not anymore than changing the question from the economy being of central importance to what your personal goals are changes the fact that you don't get to opt out of the economy.
#14830371
mikema63 wrote:The stuff you have isn't the economy. Just because the word economics wasn't coined yet doesn't mean there wasn't still an economy. We are all dependent on society for our food and shelter and no amount of shifting focus to how you like your family will change that.

Not anymore than changing the question from the economy being of central importance to what your personal goals are changes the fact that you don't get to opt out of the economy.


I can only assume you have never been forced to do serious downsizing. It is very liberating to find out you are not as dependent as you thought. It is mostly in your mind and complicated by too many people. There is absolutely no reason why we can not decide how we want to live and then change the economy to coincide with our choice. It is easy to forget that all we are talking about is trading goods and labor. It is not some magical God that must be obeyed. It is actually our modern economy that is the biggest threat to our survival. It has destroyed local production of necessities. Many people are starting to realize how foolish this was. A return to more emphasis on local production increases our survivability.
#14830375
mikema63 wrote:Just to put this out there, not that I necessarily agree with it, but I've heard not terrible arguments that neoliberalism is not really all that coherent a thing. Apparently, the argument goes, it's original use was one group of liberals trying to distance themselves from another group for political gain by calling themselves neoliberals to contrast themselves with the paleoliberals and tried to give positive feeling to the term without actually being ideologically distinct from each other. Afterwards some on the liberal left (social democrats, progressives, etc.) used it as a negative epithet against more right wing liberals. As the argument goes neoliberalism is just the aspects of liberalism that social democrats and progressives don't like so they compartmentalize it as a separate thing as if it's not a necessary consequence of their own ideologies.

Moving beyond that, what I think of when I hear the term is basically a conservative approach to the social safety net (either not expanding it or shrinking it somewhat), openly globalist foreign policy, and a sort of more establishment "feel" in the context of american politics. The alternatives are basically every other political ideology in existence and various forms of liberalism as well. For instances social democrats would expand the system and act as if they aren't perpetuating the liberal global system just because they avoid open violence a bit more (though I suspect they'd still actually continue most of the violence through back doors.)


This is the definition I use:

    Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade,[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[12][13]
    ...
    In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.[5][23] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[5] By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and the Zapatistas' reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation.[4] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[16] The impact of the global 2008–2009 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[24]

It is basically a weak Objectivism.
Is It Okay To Be Stupid

Scintillating. Hindsite: Creation by the God o[…]

But labor can be sold. But when Marx talked abou[…]

Yeah it's really difficult for teenaged girls to r[…]

@Suntzu > Never has been to Tijuana >Sa[…]