Cancel culture

[Dunning1874]

A lot of those who decry 'cancel culture' are the very same people who criticise universities for apparently being hotbeds of Marxism which don't tolerate dissent and attack free speech, so I think this is relevant here.

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/16/english-universities-must-prove-commitment-to-free-speech-for-bailouts?__twitter_impression=true

Making the government of the day - who coincidentally these free speech advocates happen to agree with - the arbiter of what universities can teach and enabling them to get rid of silly little bollocks like 'humanities courses' on the grounds of economic value is exactly what these brave defenders of free speech have been aiming for all along. Everyone who bought into their 'free speech on campus is under attack from the intolerant left' culture war because some students protested for some statues of racists to be taken down has laid the groundwork for this.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Dunning1874

[coprolite]

20 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Neoliberalism (as the term is currently used, it has changed over time, it's the kind of word that always will) isn't some mystery. It's the resurgence of old-style liberal ideas after what had been (in the west) a relatively socialisty time of it post-war.

The term is often mis-used, yes. But what neoliberalism actually is is not really up for much question.

Free markets. Privatisation. Individual liberty. Free trade. Small government. Deregulation.

Think the UK from Thatcher on and the USA from Carter and especially Reagan on. Australia since Hawke. The IMF since the 80s. Most EU policy.

Agree with your definition, as far as economics goes anyway. That is the main use but it has different, related, meanings in other disciplines. 

Thatcher/ Reagan/ IMF/EU only paid lip service to free markets and free trade though. 

Free trade meant free access to other markets for Us/uk/eu goods and access to cheap stuff that wasn't produced domestically while maintaining protectionist policies for domestic producers. 

The IMFs view of free trade was basically all about opening capital markets to exploitation. Look at thevway they used the south east asian currency crisis to force through harmful, one sided change in Indonesia for example. 

So while aspects of their policies are inspired/justified by neoliberalism i wouldn't say that they are exemplars. 

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Agree with your definition, as far as economics goes anyway. That is the main use but it has different, related, meanings in other disciplines. 

Thatcher/ Reagan/ IMF/EU only paid lip service to free markets and free trade though. 

Free trade meant free access to other markets for Us/uk/eu goods and access to cheap stuff that wasn't produced domestically while maintaining protectionist policies for domestic producers. 

The IMFs view of free trade was basically all about opening capital markets to exploitation. Look at thevway they used the south east asian currency crisis to force through harmful, one sided change in Indonesia for example. 

So while aspects of their policies are inspired/justified by neoliberalism i wouldn't say that they are exemplars. 

Depends what you're comparing them to.

Compared to the ideal of the neoliberal model, no, not really. But compared to what they replaced they were certainly  jump in that direction.

Of course, soon it'll mean something else. 'Neo', innit.

[NotThePars]

Aye I’m sure von Moses, Friedman and Hayek would still be looking on in horror at the unacceptable socialism being practiced in Anglo-America. I’m sure we’ll get there eventually though as the trajectory is only heading downwards, baby!

[coprolite]

36 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Depends what you're comparing them to.

Compared to the ideal of the neoliberal model, no, not really. But compared to what they replaced they were certainly  jump in that direction.

Of course, soon it'll mean something else. 'Neo', innit.

Agreed. In my view thatcher/reagan are to actual neoliberalism as Lenin's USSR  was to communism. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

16 hours ago, NotThePars said:

I mean just because a term is weakly applied, poorly understood, or deployed in bad faith doesn't mean it's an "unidentifiable theory"

But if weak application, poor understanding or usage bad faith is common enough then it does become so ambiguous to be of limited if any use

Which is how we ended up with this

 

[pandarilla]

A lot of those who decry 'cancel culture' are the very same people who criticise universities for apparently being hotbeds of Marxism which don't tolerate dissent and attack free speech, so I think this is relevant here.
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/16/english-universities-must-prove-commitment-to-free-speech-for-bailouts?__twitter_impression=true
Making the government of the day - who coincidentally these free speech advocates happen to agree with - the arbiter of what universities can teach and enabling them to get rid of silly little bollocks like 'humanities courses' on the grounds of economic value is exactly what these brave defenders of free speech have been aiming for all along. Everyone who bought into their 'free speech on campus is under attack from the intolerant left' culture war because some students protested for some statues of racists to be taken down has laid the groundwork for this.

That doesn't apply to chomsky. There were folk from all over the political spectrum who signed that letter.

The whole no platforming thing in universities was clearly blown out of proportion by those on the right. But it did happen - and it was silly.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 hour ago, MixuFruit said:

I don't think you need to worry too much about a very precise definition unless you're an academic doing some kind of study. It's just a byword for 'how things tend to be now' in opposition to 'how things were before 1980' or 'what Corbynism wanted instead'.

At least in terms of understanding the motivations of people who like neoliberal policy outcomes.

In referrng to "people who like "neoliberal policy outcomes" you've introduced an awkward  logical circularity.

It's arguable that even people who identify as neoliberal are misusing the term in order to misappropriate the respectability of enlightenment era liberalism. But this might not be the right place to question self-identification or cultural appropriation

Edited July 17, 2020 by topcat(The most tip top)

[Ross.]

6 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Do people do that? Say they're neoliberals? Most folk tend to react quite angrily when described as such I've found.

In my experience they generally describe themselves as "Libertarian" and what they actually mean by that is that they are a selfish c**t and wish not to help the less fortunate in society improve their lot.

[NotThePars]

Do people do that? Say they're neoliberals? Most folk tend to react quite angrily when described as such I've found.

The Adam Smith Institute weirdos probably describe themselves as such.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

23 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Do people do that? Say they're neoliberals? Most folk tend to react quite angrily when described as such I've found.

It's usage in economics goes back almost 80 years . Although when I was studying economics (way back in the grunge era) it was more often called "laissez-faire policies" or "free market economics".

"Laissez-faire" is probably a bit too foreign and difficult to spell for anglophone twitter and  the plain English of "free market"is too obvious.

"Neoliberal" on the other hand is a bit more esoteric than "Free market" and can hopefully make the user sound like the kind of person that has read a book and the kind of person that's not thinking like the previous generation, for both it's advocates and critics it's dressing up old arguments as new ones. 

 

 

 

Disclaimer : There is a risk that this opinion may be somewhat tainted by middle aged cynicism, please consume carefully

Edited July 17, 2020 by topcat(The most tip top)

[topcat(The most tip top)]

8 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

The Adam Smith Institute weirdos probably describe themselves as such.

 

The Adam Smith Institute is probably the textbook example of the  right attempting to wrap itself in the gowns of the Enlightenment. 

[Detournement]

3 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

In referrng to "people who like "neoliberal policy outcomes" you've introduced an awkward  logical circularity.

It's arguable that even people who identify as neoliberal are misusing the term in order to misappropriate the respectability of enlightenment era liberalism. But this might not be the right place to question self-identification or cultural appropriation

Respectability of enlightenment era liberalism? Slavery, child labour, the Opium trade and genocide in the new world. 

It's not respectable to anyone with a grasp of history. 

[tamthebam]

3 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

The Adam Smith Institute is probably the textbook example of the  right attempting to wrap itself in the gowns of the Enlightenment. 

I think if Adam Smith came back he'd say a similar thing about that institute as Karl Marx said "if this is Marxism then I am not a Marxist"

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Respectability of enlightenment era liberalism? Slavery, child labour, the Opium trade and genocide in the new world.  It's not respectable to anyone with a grasp of history. 

 

 

You touch on a good point in as much as there was a pronounced disconnect between the high minded ideals of the enlightenment and the what actually happened on the ground.

 

In part this is defensible on the grounds that Enlightenment thinking was Initially more of a reaction against what was going on as it was the driver of what happened.

 

In other cases it’s indefensible hypocrisy.

 

And that’s glossing over the implicit assumption that the enlightenment can be treated as a single entity. Which if you, quite reasonably, think of it in terms of history is sensible but if you think of it in terms of philosophy is problematic.

 

a simpler and more comfortable, although maybe less true, reading is that, like Athenian “Democracy” the enlightenment was “progressive”, for the time.

 

But nonetheless when we do retrospectively condemn the people of 1891 for their actions we do so using the same terms as Thomas Paine did at the time in the rights of man.

 

[welshbairn]

3 hours ago, Detournement said:

Respectability of enlightenment era liberalism? Slavery, child labour, the Opium trade and genocide in the new world. 

It's not respectable to anyone with a grasp of history. 

Always on the negatives, bet you'd throw it back in disgust if you got given a free McDonalds happy meal. Problem you have is that you haven't got a model that worked that we can emulate. And you'll say X would have worked if it wasn't for Y, but it clearly didn't.

[Detournement]

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Always on the negatives, bet you'd throw it back in disgust if you got given a free McDonalds happy meal. Problem you have is that you haven't got a model that worked that we can emulate. And you'll say X would have worked if it wasn't for Y, but it clearly didn't.

Scandi social democracy from the 60s and 70s clearly worked. 

State planning also clearly works at eradicating poverty.

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Scandi social democracy from the 60s and 70s clearly worked.

Neoliberalism with higher taxes imo, and the highest suicide rate on the planet.

Edited July 17, 2020 by welshbairn

[dorlomin]

You can always argue why someone that is wrong is wrong. But when you can silence those you disagree with it becomes a means for those who seek power to silence those who oppose them. 

I think many who grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s grew up when moral crusaders were trying to ban rap music, heavy metal or video games for their corrupting influences. They grew up knowing the ease with which people could use morality as a cloak to ban things that discomforted them. 

Freedom is not the freedom to promote ideas everyone thinks are awesome. Its the freedom to be a thick twat. 

You have to trust people to eventually make good judgements and trust yourself to be able to make good arguments. 

Many people who make many good arguments, make a few bad ones. Call them on that, dont suppress everything they ever said. 

Trust people to hear arguments to our common humanity and be won over by them. I am so out of date its a joke but I will die happy that these are the principles I lived by. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by dorlomin
grammar

[pandarilla]

Neoliberalism with higher taxes imo, and the highest suicide rate on the planet.

I'm no expert but if the higher taxes are being spent on the state then it's drifting further and further away from neoliberalism.

I think capitalism is fine if it's well controlled - with enough state intervention to provide society with the basics of what it needs (health, education, social services, police, targeted support for certain industrial areas etc).