Neoliberalism is far from over . It is in its multi-vector predacious zombie stage where it does great damage in so many fundamental ways. People are socially and intellectually blind to its impacts.
It is one on the great issues destroying Western civilization and nobody wants to address it, just like war, militarism , empire and few others on my shopping list.
Hard agree. I'm old enough to remember the 1980s (I was a teenager, but still) when the project of neoliberalism was far more contested, fragile and contingent. The problem now is that the whole mindset has been internalised even by those who claim to oppose it. It will take an enormous effort to dislodge it.
The only difference I see is the collapse of the "globalist" aspirations of free trade everywhere. So we have a rise of (typically ethno-)nationalism undermining this aspect of neoliberalism, which I would argue has emerged due to neoliberalism's own failures. I guess the only other difference is that it's intellectually dead. In the 80s and 90s its proponents argued that it would lead to a glorious future. We're in the future now and I don't see very much glorious about it. So it's just the default mode of governance domestically even though it clearly isn't capable of delivering results for the populace.
Your point about tech is pertinent. Although the neoliberal model is a failure and will continue to lead to more instability, recent developments in tech suggest that the ruling class reaction is simply to impose complete surveillance and oppression of any potential resistance, of which I can't picture much anyway in such an atomized society.
Agree with all points, but I also think we could call neoliberalism dead because it’s reaching its logical endpoint which appears to be authoritarian.
I think we’re entering an era of intensifying left & right populism with desperate attempts to quash & co-opt popular movements.
I still choose optimism over realism regarding resistance though. Conditions are poor for movement building right now, but they’re also getting much more volatile.
Well said, Luke. As a futurist and engineer, I follow the development and privatization of scientific infrastructure closest. It is difficult to incentivize capital toward fundamental research in certain fields. Without champions, the systems to produce scientific architecture erode away like untended bridges.
For sure. And a lot of private investment in research and innovation isn’t in things that are socially productive or useful. There’s a reason so many of the most significant scientific and technological innovations have their origins in publicly-funded research.
2020 was also the year Mark Carney gave the BBC Reith Lectures and had the gall to jump on the anti-capitalist bandwagon, literally lecturing us all on the importance of morals over markets (just Googled his cv - yep, not a socialist!). You are right - this is neoliberalism donning its latest disguise so that it can carry on!
Carney is a master of the old liberal technique of speaking to grievance to placate the people while continuing to make matters worse with his actual policies.
Neoliberalism's entrenchment is testament to the power of technologically-leveraged dominion to manufacture consent; it's deeply demoralising to behold its tenets still exerting such influence, after so much destructive evidence of its corrosive character has come to pass. It's the perfect solvent for collective intelligence, it seems.
We're locked into circling the drain unless we can rapidly recognise the shape of the problem and its solution together. That last bit might explain why neoliberalism became locked in - it was established before we stopped sharing so much of the discourse space, not to mention that space being owned by its architects and boosters... But the core problem is much older.
Neoliberalism is far from over . It is in its multi-vector predacious zombie stage where it does great damage in so many fundamental ways. People are socially and intellectually blind to its impacts.
It is one on the great issues destroying Western civilization and nobody wants to address it, just like war, militarism , empire and few others on my shopping list.
Hard agree. I'm old enough to remember the 1980s (I was a teenager, but still) when the project of neoliberalism was far more contested, fragile and contingent. The problem now is that the whole mindset has been internalised even by those who claim to oppose it. It will take an enormous effort to dislodge it.
The only difference I see is the collapse of the "globalist" aspirations of free trade everywhere. So we have a rise of (typically ethno-)nationalism undermining this aspect of neoliberalism, which I would argue has emerged due to neoliberalism's own failures. I guess the only other difference is that it's intellectually dead. In the 80s and 90s its proponents argued that it would lead to a glorious future. We're in the future now and I don't see very much glorious about it. So it's just the default mode of governance domestically even though it clearly isn't capable of delivering results for the populace.
Your point about tech is pertinent. Although the neoliberal model is a failure and will continue to lead to more instability, recent developments in tech suggest that the ruling class reaction is simply to impose complete surveillance and oppression of any potential resistance, of which I can't picture much anyway in such an atomized society.
Agree with all points, but I also think we could call neoliberalism dead because it’s reaching its logical endpoint which appears to be authoritarian.
I think we’re entering an era of intensifying left & right populism with desperate attempts to quash & co-opt popular movements.
I still choose optimism over realism regarding resistance though. Conditions are poor for movement building right now, but they’re also getting much more volatile.
Well said, Luke. As a futurist and engineer, I follow the development and privatization of scientific infrastructure closest. It is difficult to incentivize capital toward fundamental research in certain fields. Without champions, the systems to produce scientific architecture erode away like untended bridges.
For sure. And a lot of private investment in research and innovation isn’t in things that are socially productive or useful. There’s a reason so many of the most significant scientific and technological innovations have their origins in publicly-funded research.
100%
I once heard it said that Reagan and Thatcher made greed acceptable. I think it still is, possibly more so.
2020 was also the year Mark Carney gave the BBC Reith Lectures and had the gall to jump on the anti-capitalist bandwagon, literally lecturing us all on the importance of morals over markets (just Googled his cv - yep, not a socialist!). You are right - this is neoliberalism donning its latest disguise so that it can carry on!
Carney is a master of the old liberal technique of speaking to grievance to placate the people while continuing to make matters worse with his actual policies.
It’s just as silly as saying “late stage capitalism”. Just sounds like wishful thinking.
Can neoliberalism ever end? And at what point does the modified neoliberalism not resemble neoliberalism anymore?
Neoliberalism's entrenchment is testament to the power of technologically-leveraged dominion to manufacture consent; it's deeply demoralising to behold its tenets still exerting such influence, after so much destructive evidence of its corrosive character has come to pass. It's the perfect solvent for collective intelligence, it seems.
We're locked into circling the drain unless we can rapidly recognise the shape of the problem and its solution together. That last bit might explain why neoliberalism became locked in - it was established before we stopped sharing so much of the discourse space, not to mention that space being owned by its architects and boosters... But the core problem is much older.
https://agnosticfundamentalism.substack.com/p/the-shadow-of-aristocracy