Fascism vs Neoliberalism (trump, clinton)

Where is this idea coming from that Trump’s policies are NOT neo-liberal?

Look at his appointments. Combined with a republican congress if anything he’s the most extreme version of that we have seen yet.

Anyone who exonerates Trump in any way at any level automatically loses my interest. It’s just a form of blindness and it’s irritating as such. It is invariably based on bad analysis.

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

Where is this idea coming from that Trump’s policies are NOT neo-liberal?

Look at his appointments. Combined with a republican congress if anything he’s the most extreme version of that we have seen yet.

Anyone who exonerates Trump in any way at any level automatically loses my interest. It’s just a form of blindness and it’s irritating as such. It is invariably based on bad analysis.

————
I dont think Hedges is saying Trumps policies are ‘not-neoliberal’ — i think he is saying they are ‘neoliberal mixed with fascism’ which is different than just ‘neoliberal’.

Though there is this odd anti-nafta strain in Trumps rhetoric. Its not neoliberal rhetoric on that one subject, but we dont know if trump is serious about that or what he might do about that, etc. I agree with Hedges that Trump is not an intellectual with principled-ideas about policies. He’s more malleable than that.

Plus trump has this thread of pat buchanon isolationism at times. Thats not neoliberal. Then again Trump says things that are the opposite of isolationism sometimes. So we dunno. But he is not
your garden variety neoliberal.

w
v

I get what you’re saying, WV. But “neoliberalism” means domestic policy too. So, at least theoretically, a person can be an Pat Buchanon isolationist and still want neoliberal policies implemented at home.

Again, like deep tax cuts for the rich, severe deregulation of business, and accelerated privatization.

Buchanon favored all of those things on the domestic front. As does Trump. Trump has called directly for the three main aspects of neoliberal doctrine.

Being kinda, sorta against “free trade,” from one degree to another, doesn’t conflict with that.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.

Okay, now I’ve watched the Hedges thing, and the first thing I am compelled to say is that those Hawk silhouettes flitting across the screen are the most irritating thing I have seen on any news show, and news has had increasingly irritating visual pollution since about 1980.

This thread and the Greenwald thread seem to be merging.

The way I see it is that neoliberalism and fascism are pretty much the same thing. The difference is in degree, rather than kind. Neoliberalism is polite fascism. Polite fascism is better than impolite fascism in some respects, although there is the possibility that impolite fascism will be resisted more forcefully. I mean…even the Clintonistas may get on board for opposing the excesses we get to witness over the next four years (or more).

What has been unleashed now is unapologetic neoliberalism, economic policy which no longer pretends to have gone to finishing school. This is brazen. I liked the description of Trump as a conman. This new government – and I include congress as much or even more than Trump – just is no longer going to expend energy putting on a pretty face. They will come out and say whatever, contradict it tomorrow, blast their opponents ruthlessly, disregard facts, and just bulldoze their way through everything. Like McConnell, who literally complained that democrats were going to be obstructionists. Who literally complained that the hearings on the cabinet appointees shouldn’t be held up by the very rules that he used to hold up Obama’s appointments. They will just ram their way through everything, steal everything in sight, and keep throwing racist meat and patriotic bullshit at their pissed off base (who, apparently, will believe ANYTHING whatsoever, and may NEVER understand that they have been conned because there will never be a shortage of minorities and atheists to blame for everything).

As far as foreign policy goes, I think that comes down to industry interests.

The (few) neoliberals who are isolationist (like Trump might be), simply don’t have investments that require subjugating Poland or Syria. That’s the military-oil-finance billionaires. But some people who have more local empires just see that as an expense that doesn’t benefit them directly, and which creates unpleasant blowback. It’s a waste of money to them.

But Trump has no principles because he’s a narcissist. Narcissists only care about their personal image, about being better and more entitled than everyone else. He is malleable. And because of the people he has surrounded himself with, I think we can count on the military/oil/finance people carrying on with their destruction of the world, although it may be tempered slightly in the case of Russia. There’s still China to fuck with, and maybe they will compromise that way.

Zooey, well said.

Polite and impolite fascism.

Some econ writers might use “soft” or “hard.”

But I do think you’re correct in your descriptions. They’re not even trying to hide this stuff anymore. More and more brazen about it every day. Though the Dems tend to be (neurotically) invested in appearing “reasonable” and “rational” about things. Which just plays into the hands of the people who reject the niceties and are fine with the irrational.

Bottom line: It’s all ugly, and getting uglier by the day.

I’m hoping I can get published and move to Europe in the next few years. Maybe the south of France. Nimes would be excellent.

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

i have a
more broad idea in mind than just ‘domestic econ policy’.

Again, it’s economic policy.

Not domestic per se.

And, different foreign policies can be attached to neoliberal economics.

One does not dictate the other in any kind of necessary way. And you choosing to use the word a certain way is just you. But it is leading to a lot of analytic confusion.

If you want to look at the combination of foreign policy and neoliberal economics, it’s a case of one from menu A, then the only thing (neoliberal) on menu B.

So it could be A1 and B, or A2 and B, or A3 and B, and so on.

..

————–
And i would say ‘economic policy’ is a very stretchy concept, that necessarily implicates the CIA and the NSA and Drones and Weapons and all the rest.

Otherwise ‘economic policy’ is just academic writings in a book.

In the real world ‘economic policy’ ie, ‘neoliberalism’ includes a lot of the mechanisms of enforcement and power.

WE are now at the point of repeating ourselves over a ‘semantic’ issue. So you can have the last word if you want it.

w
v

It looks liked I invited myself into this conversation without being wanted, but I’ll throw in my two cents here at its end anyway.

;>)

If I understand you correctly, WV — and I probably don’t — you’re saying that CIA, NSA and MIC support and “defense” of our economic system is integral to the “neoliberal” project, and that this is unique to its particular form.

I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the same forces have been at work defending (and going on the offense for) our version of capitalism, no matter what it is, going back a long, long time. And once neoliberalism is history, we’re still going to see the same actors doing the same godawful things in the name of ______ fill in the blank.

In short, it’s not unique to the neoliberal project. It’s more a matter of the capitalist system itself, what it provokes and requires in order to grow, expand and maintain its dominance . . . and prevent any alternatives.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

;>)

If I understand you correctly, WV — and I probably don’t — you’re saying that CIA, NSA and MIC support and “defense” of our economic system is integral to the “neoliberal” project, and that this is unique to its particular form.

————
Yes, I’m saying all that stuff supports/defends the neoliberal-project in the real-world. I dont think GLOBALneoliberalism could survive without that stuff.

But no, i am not saying that stuff is ‘uniquely integral’ to neoliberalism. I dont know enough about history to have an opinion on that one way or the other.

w
v

We agree that those things fit together and that the neoliberal project would fall apart without the big guns protecting it and bailing it out, etc. But from my study of the history, that’s true of capitalism itself, in every form we’ve seen to date.

As in, as soon as the CIA, NSA, etc. were formed, they and our military protected and advanced the capitalist system worldwide. That’s basically right after WWII, and roughly thirty years before neoliberalism took off. And before that, it was some other intel nexus here, with another name, working with the military, etc. etc.

In short, it’s not really “neoliberalism” per se that generates the need for Deep State protections. It’s the capitalist system itself, in whatever form. We know this because the Deep State, in one form or another, has been doing this for more than a century . . . and America’s project, for more than a century, has been the defense, expansion and projection of capitalism globally.

Billy_T wrote:

If the question is:

Is neoliberalism one of the worst forms of capitalism ever?

If we narrow the time frame down to the last 80 years or so, yes. It’s safe to say it’s the worst. But things were even worse during the first Gilded Age, and probably all the way up until FDR.

It’s odious, regardless. But I think capitalism is odious, in all its forms.

I think it would help this discussion if someone explained the key differences between keynsian and neoliberal economic policies.

YOu game?

Some more context:

Just as neoliberalism was a reaction to the Keynesian era, Keynesianism was a reaction to the neoclassical consensus that dominated before the Great Depression.

It’s more complicated that this, but, boiled down, a major aspect of neoclassical theory is a focus on the individual economic actor (micro), who are believed to operate just fine on their own without any government assistance. Keynes and others studied recessions and depressions and noted how “structural” the causes were, and focused more on systems (macro). Again, it’s more complicated than this, but, essentially, Keynes and company saw individuals being acted upon by systemic forces, and believed government’s role was to fix systems to prevent problems in the first place, and to get us out of recessions and depressions when they do happen. The neoclassical view was far more “laissez faire.”

As always, there is some bleed-over between the various economic theories. But, in essence, one view was far more “Individuals make decisions in their own best interests, and if governments get out of the way, all will be well.” versus . . . “People do not always have the necessary information to make sound economic decisions, and systems are powerful enough to skew, if not wipe out, individual agency.”

Micro versus macro theories, basically. Neoliberalism, with bleed-over, and without entirely dumping all aspects of Keynes, sided overwhelmingly with the much older neoclassical view. It’s kinda, sorta, neo-neoclassical.

That no longer is the case, of course, so pretty much all of our “compromises” end up being between the center and the hard right. The real left is left out (today).

Billy_T wrote:

ZN,

Would enjoy reading your take here as well.

And where is Mac? Economic theory has long been one of his areas of interest.

I don’t really have anything to add.

Just that if anything, there’s more pure neo-liberal policy in Trump than any of the other candidates, going back to the primaries.

If anything IMO that stuff will be more damaging in the long run than any of his noisy white identity politics.

..

Billy_T wrote:

What’s your take on who or what determines what we get, economically? And where do you tend to lean among the three visions?

I am afraid you’re not going to get very much out of me on this. It’s not really an area I explore.

I just know that neoliberalism is a tragic stupid mistake and that killing off the New Deal is a bad, bad idea.

That’s about it for me. I am interested in anything anyone else has to say about it, but I really don’t have much to offer in a discussion like that.

.