When Will Neoliberalism Collapse? w/ Gary Gerstle
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2024
- What does it mean when we say that the neoliberal order is collapsing? Historian Gary Gerstle argues that we need to think beyond election cycles to what he calls “political orders” to truly comprehend deeper shifts in political power and what they mean for socialist strategy.
Subscribe to the channel and hit the like button!
Subscribe to Jacobin in print for just $10: jacobinmag.com...
Music provided by Zonkey: linktr.ee/zonkey
Freedom in neoliberalism is freedom for those that can afford it. Neoliberal freedom is a commercial goods.
No, it's still the same freedom. That's an absurd thing to say. You just don't have any money. So why don't you just ask for more money. That's what you want, so just ask for it, or demand it. Don't be all intellectually cutesy, or even dishonest. Just say we want more money. Because you got your freedom. It's the money you don't have.
Neoliberalism is not democratic. Now certain investment banks owns over 50 % of all assets in the world and they think they have the right to decide. And control the narrative and in the end even the state. They have the freedom .It is neoliberalism that makes the value of the money and assets to even stronger power. then it ever was.the last 100 years. It minimizes the value of democracy. One $ one vote.Not one person one vote. Sp they buy the system that just benefits them self. If you call that freedom for all it is not. Neoliberalism is modern feodalism.
@@Joeyjojoshabbadoolmao bro what.
I know this is a foreign concept to you people, but sometimes other people care about those less fortunate than them, and don’t live based on a “fuck you, I got mine” mentality. Instead, they ask for the world to be improved for all people, even idiots like you who believe yourselves to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Most impressed with the interviewer. Excellent questions that kept the conversation fluid.
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! 💎
The people of Chile finally had enough of neoliberalism. When will the people of the United States follow suit
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).
I grew up in the 90's... Weird times. It was odd seeing the last bit of manufacturing packing up under the guise of environmental protection, while a bunch of middlemen became wealthy, while telling the rest of us that we needed "education" (basically debt) to succeed, all while big pharma drugged us for depression and anxiety because we knew better in our hearts. Now we have a bunch of small TV's that distract us from how crumbled our societal foundation has become, a heavy class system and tons of infighting.
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...
Fascinating conversation! What an excellent guest. Thank you for having Professor Gerstle on the show. I really enjoyed it.
This book is probably going to teach a lot about the history of US politics and I'm going to buy it right now. Thank you.
The question is; if government intervention is no longer required to save capitalism/neoliberalism, why then do we (the people) bail them out every now and then (more often every time)?
So few people are capable of presenting opposing ideologies thoroughly and fairly, this was a pleasure to listen to.
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.
Maybe when one understands so-called "neoliberalism" is not Liberalism
I’m shocked when I find out how many people are unfamiliar with neoliberalism. When I mention it in debate people assume I’m talking about “modern liberals” aka socialism. It’s massively frustrating.
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".
This book will be a very good read. Thank you for having this gentleman for an interview.
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?
Actually this makes sense. The 90s felt like a naive optimistic time. I guess the group think was... Everything will work out for good in the end. I'm a parent so I'm more aware of this than others but I really miss the public decency of the airwaves as things have gotten increasingly crass and vulgar and just inappropriate. And at the same time, a contradictory impulse toward political correctness.
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.
Neoliberalism is just 19th century Manchester liberal capitalism dressed up in new clothes. Neoliberalism says that capitalism will bring us heaven on earth, rich people are worthy of worship, and that poor people need a good kicking. As doctrines go, it's a combination of civic religion and trendy idiocy.
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
This is one of the more detailed and material discussions on neoliberalism/order that I’ve encountered. Great job, Jen. Anyone interested, Pascal Robert from Sublation, Black Agenda Report and This is Revolution podcast often describes the 50 year neoliberal counterrevolution in detail as well.
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!
For early 90s college me, nothing epitomized techno-utopianism more than WIRED magazine. So many of the editorials had this underlying ideal that the world was coming together as one cooperative community, through the power of the internet. Being a natural cynic I remember shaking my head at how naive some of it sounded.
Lol, so the question becomes, how much of the optimism was ignorance and how much was intentional baiting?
I maintain that the subliminal context of this has grown to be a National Attitude. I blame Corporate Media, and advertising. The constant onslaught of advertising in our faces imparts a set of "values", to the point that every relationship becomes transactional. Politicians are voted into office, and kept "score" entirely by how much money they can amass, to the point of there being nothing else more important; not policy, not intelligence or character. OBVIOUSLY.
absolutely, if we don't have a cohesive, well thought out concept of what to replace the neoliberal order with we are in danger of something much worse taking hold. and don't think the neoliberal leaders are not contemplating this.
Thank you both for making this, having this conversation, it's refreshing and helpful in understanding the crumbing hellscape which we currently inhabit, while giving hope for a different future beyond this.
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.
I recommend the book. It is readable for someone like me who isn’t an academic but likes these kinds of discussions and the seriousness of the analysis. But this interview did a great job of bringing out the main ideas in the book.
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.
Your description of the lefts flailing after the fall of Soviet Union reminded me of the gilded age.
Similar to how the new deal was precipitated by robber barons and fear of communist ideas.
Obscene inequality leads to instability and labor/class movements.
Well done interview. Jen had clearly absorbed the material before she began, and Gary put some very useful structure into my chaos.
Great job Jen with this interview of Dr. Gerstle.
I’ve read his book & listened to his interviews on other platforms.
I’m really glad that you chose him as a guest & especially pleased that Jen spoke with him.
This discussion (from a historian, who discusses the New Deal openly as a compromise to maintain capitalism - but without apology) opened the FIRST glimmer of hope for the future that I’ve had for a long, long time.
GREAT JOB JACOBIN
When we build the political power to tear it down
When piglets fly. 🐷
Tfw
You can just ask "when will injustice collapse?"
Don't hold your breath
For me it's hopeful to imagine the end of the neoliberal order, which I view as mainly destructive. The focus on freedom was very interesting and insightful. I hadn't quite put it together like that before. But it totally works in my mind at least.
Of course, the main question left is, what's next?
The surprise rise of Bernie Sanders' ideas was very inspiring, but at the same moment, the resurgence of fascism was the other side of the changes that are also going to be a part of the next order. We seem to be returning to the arguments from the 1930's.
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!!! -_-
He doesn’t mention the unleashing of banking regulations in the 50s that allowed for the slow increase of centralized financial power back to Wall Street. Bankers were able to sell progressively riskier investment products. That lead to an overall destabilizing effect on international markets. Financial institutions who had been growing wealthier with riskier products were able to convince Bush and Clinton to back pro Wall Street policies due to their past success in the 80s This success was coming to an end making the investments more dangerous.
FASCINATING conversation. And FANTASTIC questions, Jen!! I agree with Gary on ALL points. A new one for me that I greatly look forward to reading up on. I believe he was referring to the BRIC countries in the 90s. (Brazil, Russia, India, China.) I know. I lived every day of it. We TRULY (and naively) DID see it as the Wild West. A lot of fortunes made. A lot of lives STILL being destroyed as a result. I'm interested in building a Community Collaborative that is a diverse collection of co-ops, each serving their own Community.
"Bronze Age Debt Cancellations and Modern Cognitive Dissonance
So we are led back to why I was invited to speak here today. David Graeber wrote in his Debt book that he was seeking to popularize my Harvard group’s documentation that debt cancellations did indeed exist and were not simply literary utopian exercises. His book helped make debt a public issue, as did his efforts in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The Obama administration backed police breaking up the OWS encampments and did everything possible to destroy awareness of the debt problems plaguing the U.S. and foreign economies. And not only the mainstream media but also academic orthodoxy circled their wagons against even the thought that debts could be written down and indeed needed to be written down to prevent economies from falling into depression.
That neoliberal pro-creditor ethic is the root of today’s New Cold War. When President Biden describes this great world conflict aimed at isolating China, Russia, India, Iran and their Eurasian trading partners, he characterizes this as an existential struggle between “democracy” and “autocracy.”
By “democracy” he means oligarchy. And by “autocracy” he means any government strong enough to prevent a financial oligarchy from taking over government and society and imposing neoliberal rules - by force. The ideal is to make the rest of the world look like Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, where American neoliberals had a free hand in stripping away all public ownership of land, mineral rights and basic public utilities."
I would have liked to have asked him why has it been so hard for people like the Clintons or Obama to see the obvious?
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.)
Johan Galtung of University of Hawaii, from Norway, travelled to the USSR for the end, and he famously predicated it in his 1980 lectures, which I attended live. His prediction of the US empire implosion is a bit late, but he was within one month on the USSR, from a distance of eleven years.
Capital has to learn its role in a newly emerging multipolar world; it cannot go on exploiting labour to the extent it does, nor to the extent that it is provoking geopolitical tension between nation states, especially the nuclear armed major power states. Capital must learn to take its place on the periphery of nation state market economies. The new axis of all economies with any hope of future growth will be socialist. Only socialism can rid the world of poverty and reduce geopolitical tension.
Thank you what a fab conversation. What a concise and eloquent explanation of New Left’ turn to individualism, coinciding with the digital revolution resulting in acceleration and mass adoption of neoliberal ideas. Adam Curtis did a doc about this as folks may remember but alas I love books so THIS Book is ordered. ❤❤❤
was it in hypernormalization or where was it?
I like Bernie Sanders because he's a New Deal style politician who believes in social democracy the same as I do. It certainly beats the autocracy building on the right and I didn't care for the Neoliberal era which to a large degree we still seem to be stuck with.
I'm gonna have to check this out because i need some clarification as to what neo liberal means. It's a concept brushed with such a broad stroke
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: ua-cam.com/video/aQnTLd1_uCc/v-deo.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.
*VERY GOOD* one of the best things I have watched in a long time
Excellent interview - excited to check out Gerstle's work
Very clear and sensible analysis. I'm excited by the end note, a call to envision and create a new future.
"The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order" sounds like a really interesting read! I am definitely going to pick that up
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.
Labor rights and environmental protections cut into corporate profits. When Nixon passed environmental laws (the last president to do so) that was the last straw. Capitalists rounded their wagons, made an example of Nixon and have been waging war against humanity ever since.
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.
Its Nice for you to have me. Classic Big Man Gerstie.
That certain progressive 'new-left' values were used and co-opted by neoliberalism isn't so controversial. This is more or less what Fredric Jameson meant with "postmodernism is the cultural logical of late capitalism", many thinkers have made similar observations.
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.
The question I would have loved to ask is to what extent the collapse of the Neoliberal Order could be a harbinger to nuclear war. Could the collapse of this order, the rise of borders, and the return to earlier rivalries lead down a path to a nuclear war.
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.
I can not begin to express how above my knowledge you guys have been. I love that so much I am unable to express my views .Most imperatives podcast,thank you for that🙏🙏🙏🔥🔥🔥🔥😎😎😎👽👽❤️❤️❤️🦁
Freedom.
What could possibly go wrong?
What is the best kind of money?
Easy money.
In the past those at the top have kept it for themselves.
The classical economists identified the constructive “earned” income and the parasitic “unearned” income.
Most of the people at the top lived off the parasitic “unearned” income and they now had a big problem.
This problem was solved with neoclassical economics, which hides this distinction.
Economic liberalism does look like a good idea when using neoclassical economics.
What happens in reality?
Everyone had expected economic liberalism to unleash capitalist dynamism.
Instead there was a stampede towards the easy money of “unearned” income.
In 1984, for the first time in American history, “unearned” income exceeded “earned” income.
The rentiers have never had it so good.
With a BTL portfolio, I can get the capital gains on a number of properties and extract the hard earned income of generation rent at the same time.
That sounds good.
What is there not to like?
We love easy money.
You’ve just got to sniff out the easy money.
All that hard work involved in setting up a company yourself, and building it up.
Why bother?
Asset strip firms other people have built up, that’s easy money.
They love easy money.
People do love easy money and that’s the problem.
How on earth do you get them to do anything useful and create some real wealth?
That’s what I like about the markets.
I can just sit on my back side as the capital gains accrue.
We’ve got to try and get them to do some real work and create some real wealth. Getting them to do any work at all will be a good start; there are so many easy ways to make money.
Making money and creating wealth are two different things. We need to focus on wealth creation.
@30:15 Gary describes a time after the Soviet collapse when "those who thought of themselves as on the left... began to define their leftism in alternative terms." Is this what is meant by 'ideological capture'?
Not really. That was just an arguably natural reaction to fall of USSR. What was 'the left' supposed to do?
48:12 “Again, Gary Gestle’s new book is _The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era._ We will link [to] that in the description box below.”
It’s not.
This is the most succinct, erudite and easy to follow triptych through the era of neoliberalism, the order it represents and the beginning...at least the beginning of our disillusionment with the shiny object sold to us as neoliberal "freedom" .
Bernie was neutered long ago.
We've gone from neoliberal to Orwellian.
National healthcare has been debated for 100 years.
How much opium does it take to think human history will suddenly take a hard left turn?
What? YT lists ten (10) comments but I see two (2)
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
Reagan was a Neoliberal in practice for maybe about the first couple of years of his presidency. He remained a Neoliberal in word, but became something of a mutant extreme Keynesian for the final six years of his presidency. By this I mean that he spent like an absolute madman - far more than Keynes would have recommended during a depression. It did in fact, stimulate the economy, but at great cost. Predictably, it did not create additional stimulus beyond that predicted by Keynes's prescriptions. It simply created more debt.
Disagree, Reagan compromised with the Democrats. Democrats wanted higher spending, Reagan wanted lower taxes. Both got their way.
The biggest beneficiary of neo-liberalism has been the People's Republic of China. The incredibly rapid industrialisation of the PRC would not have occurred without neo-liberal influence in G7 countries.
I also don't know if Europe and America will share it. They are starting to somewhat grow apart and I as a European also want the EU to have it's own system and to stop the domination of American and Chinese tech megacorps. The EU has a history of being quite unfriendly to American big tech and for many the 2009 punishment of microsoft was a turning point that validated the EU in the eyes of many Europeans.
We reflect in Australia the Clinton years with our own political leadership, Paul Keating PM and Tony Blair in Britain. NOW we are stuck with the consequences of NEOLIBERALISM in such a way that NO ONE can see a way out without a general collapse of the economic, political and social order. An ugly collapse at that.
It needs to happen!!! When and ONLY WHEN USA finally collapses will the world be totally free from this EVIL EMPIRE OF SATAN
...don't forget all the intellectual property rights - the TRIPS agreement was essential to the 90's
It seems that Jimmy Carter was one of the most technocratic presidents and began the move right in the Democratic party.
"It's nice for you to have me." Modest.
The question is not 'when will neoliberalism collapse?,' it is 'when will capitalism collapse?' Neoliberalism isn't some corruption of a kinder, gentler capitalism but rather capitalism's last gasp. Were it not for neoliberalism, capitalism would have collapsed already. The End is Nigh!
I lived thru the entire 1970’s and shit was affordable. Housing, education, food. I really don’t know what set of Americans had a hard time cuz my parents were poor and still were able to buy a house two cars and all the food 7 kids needed
I also think this is an excellent and very well conducted summary. But am I the only one who feels the prof sort of cops out by not being more committal as to where we are at now? After all, the new deal kicked in some three years after the crash of '29 and neo-liberalism became a thing within six years of the great recession of '74. Whereas here we are closing in on 14 years since the crash of '08. For a theory to be meaningful it must be useful. It's not enough to say there are (neo?) socialist movements afoot but its not clear yet whether capital can weather this challenge. With that, I wish everyone a happy fourth!
The best interview I have seen yet!!! Thanks Jen
This man explains in 20 min how the New Left became the new Right.
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.
This was fantastic. He just gave me a new perspective on “progressives”; instead of wanting to shake/slap them, now I just want to pat them on the head 🤣
As a high school student in the 70‘s I was able to see that the days of the USSR were coming to an end. To be fair to the speaker though, absolutely no one believed me then nor even as late as the late 1980‘s. It is costly to see something ahead of your time.
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.
Fantastic interview. Really great interviewer. Intelligent, insightful questions.
We’re witnessing the effect of the first generation of Americans raised on toy commercials disguised as cartoons with absentee “me generation” parents and what a large chunk of us are doing is stepping back from neoliberalism. What comes next is a mystery but this particular center will not hold.
Fall? I hope so, but at the moment nothing's changing
So the dictionary defines Neoliberalism as “policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society”. So why is the opposite of that better? Why is regulation, protectionism, increasing government spending and decreasing or eliminating the private sector better?
Simple:
1. Because it increases the positive freedom of the masses, of people like me. This is because it allows the State to free people from a society based on rent-extraction and debt.
2. Because it allows Human rationality to govern itself, as opposed to the inhuman and alien "market intelligence".
@@gauthamprak By definition you must reduce freedom in order to regulate an economy. You must stop by penalty of law the ability of free peoples to conduct trade amongst themselves. Essentially you’re arguing for a totalitarian dictatorship. Indeed it is impossible to have democracy and self rule without a free market. I’m not sure what you mean by “inhuman market intelligence”. The market is made of humans. How can it possible be alien and inhuman?
The question is, will feudalism become dominant again or will something else rise from the ashes?
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.
The monarchy was overthrown and the oligarch took its place in the US revolution
On the one hand, there is an accepted and agreed admission that the Soviet empire was 'voluntarily'' dismantled by Mr. Gorbacgev in the nane if glasnost and perestroika.
Yet on the other hand, there is also the accepted view that the West and the US won the cold war.
Is the explanation of this dichotomy the fact that the West and US were knowingly and leading the naive Gorbachev down the garden path all along, and while he may have been acting in good faith, they were not.
Man. You are the BEST GATEKEEPER OF ALL TIME👍🏻
I don’t think capitalists will be able to revive neoliberalism because I think that would require them to sacrifice much of their own wealth and power, something I believe is anathema to the capitalist class.
Oh yes they will resist. Not all but a significant majority backed by the right leaning media.
😂😂😂 yes so true
great talk
*HERE'S WHY NEOLIBERALISM IS DYING:*
The information revolution provided by computerization and the internet are what has allowed the financialization of so many aspects of life that were not assigned market values in the past.
At the same time, it is well-established in psychology that the belief one is being observed changes people's decision-making both consciously and unconsciously.
Therefore, the very act of creating these huge propriety data sets and algorithm-driven personalized "rabbit holes" is destroying several of the pillars of 19th-century thought crucial to the neoliberal order.
Most notably, the financialization of more and more aspects of private life has eroded the concept of "economic liberty". Here defined as:
"economic liberty - the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud, theft or government regulation."
By this definition, the internet has no economic liberty. Nearly every personal interaction becomes recorded in a database as a transaction with associated proprietary metadata that holds a real-world commercial value for the platform holder. Thus, every platform has a "terms of service" agreement.
And a huge number of users *are fully aware* of the fact they are being watched and adjust their behaviour in response the ever-present mild coercion that comes with the knowledge of being observed.
Meanwhile, those who follow the concept of "economic liberty" it its logical conclusion have decided to rail against "internet censorship" and "cancel culture" because they see a difference between "persuasion" and "coercion" that I sincerely doubt ever existed.
Is there a metric by which pollies could be paid according to performance?
44:00 THE GREEN NEW DEAL
Any attempt at a GND, driven through the Private Sector is necessarily
less in potential than any drive solely through the State, for
various reasons, the most obvious being:
Profit as primary driver = less of necessary units; less quality, more corners cut.
Board bonuses, dividends, political 'kick backs' all draw capital away from
what should be the central mission.
An illustration -
Under State ownership -
The State (which CREATES money) can buy land,
build a factory, purchase means of production for raw materials ..
Employ management staff, and pay them, shall we say $150,000 p.a.
The constraints on such an endeavour are political.
Time. Efficiency. Quality. And element of public pressure...
vs
Corporate power >
Which dictates reserves of Profit for dividend payments
Board bonuses - which usually run into the millions$
Profit margins will dictate quality
Profit margins will dictate number
A draw on coffers for PR output, again often millions$
In this instance, as many others, the Private Sector is
proven to be wholly unfit for such a mission
This line of argumentation reminds me of Adam Curtis ' documentaries.
Thank you, Gary Gerstle and Jen.
Score one for the UA-cam algo. Grateful for this popping up. A smart interviewer, easy on the eye but a super brain to match. A great guest who speaks lucidly and brings a lot of knowledge to break down complexity into a relatable simple form. Thanks a lot ❤️❤️
Would capitalism survive a global decline in population growth? Some experts predict a steady decline in human population growth beginning as soon as 2035.
Nope. Capitalism is currently propped up by useless consumer spending. A decline in consumers and workers will significantly harm that. Any economic declines from here on out are going to to wreak havoc and get harder and harder for capitalism to make it out of in tact
Watching this three years on from this is chilling.
Reframing socialism as the antidote to personal freedom is always done by individuals from the most affluent backgrounds who have never had to manage a p&l
Some overlap between 'order' and 'discourse', I think. Foucault defines discourse as the set of statements which are accepted as true without evidence.
Great interview. Gerstle’s previous book American Crucible is fantastic as well
WoW! thanks for having gary on. Now, I understand so much more.
Get lobbyists and insider trading out of politics , then the politicians can start doing what is best for America 🇺🇸 not their pockets
Hopefully today.
Fantastic! Thank you!
Should never have repealed Glass-Steigel!
He's very astute. And his examples of the neoliberal/neocon implementation by the Bush administration in Iraq is incisive.
However, I'm convinced that by and large the vast majority of plutocratic political-economic powers that be will ride the neoliberal sinking titanic of avarice all the way to the bottom, continuing with a fire sale until the last possible penny can be made. The vast majority of all economics teachings, as well as MBAs, across the planet for four decades were based in Milton Friedman's market fundamentalism and nothing else. Even today this is still universally taught. The certain belief that the private sector solves everything, no matter how wealthy the rich get, this will somehow make life better for everyone, as greed is good, the shareholder class drives everything, and this is the only economic solution, to everything, forever.
I honestly don't see this changing much, for years, maybe decades, even as economies collapse. While perception may changing in a majority of people, and will continue to, mostly driven by unrelenting and increasing damage due to global warming, the dominance of plutocracy and neoliberalism will still exist for some time to come.
One thing that could scare the 'capital' into change would be, in my mind, stopping the Fed from constantly bailing the markets out every time they run amuck/ fail. Another thing that would cause change is the repeal of Citizens United. Yet another, would be big increases in the taxation of the wealthiest.
Jennifer Pan is brilliant. She made this interview.
There is no freedom without the funds to support the individuals goals. Until ye U.S. addresses its economic failure to support its citizens there's no freedom and thus is nothing but talk
Excellent food for thought
Freedom with responsibility...licenciousness otherwise.
43:00 HOW WILL CAPITALISTS ACT IN RESPONSE TO DECLINING NEO-LIBERAL
- Firstly we need to understand the extent to which national executives (governments)
have been captured. It is State power which these agencies and agents rely on.
The paradox: hard power, and soft power which is too visible, creates
an opposing reaction from populations > as evidenced by the downfall of
despots through the Ages.
BUT will they grasp this risk?
The wiser number may look to 'traditional' options first > obfuscation, deflection,
and basic lying > outwardly claiming 'x' policy, whilst following 'Y' policy.
One of the great difficulties for this Order, and particularly their peers in
corporate media > at a certain point, lying will simply no longer work.
People that are Cold/Hungry/Unemployed/Sick/homeless/subject to violence/ deprived of rights and democracy KNOW they are !!
No amount of Spin will conceal this fact from public consciousness.
38:00 'Four Freedoms' - it is necessary to draw distinction between rhetoric and reality.
Whilst flawed in other political areas, Zuboff's 'Surveillance Capitalism' does a good
job of illustrating just how far the Surveillance State has spread, and its role in
facilitating Corporate Surveillance.
The notion that information Freedom is anything other than rhetoric, is somewhat
ludicrous. All Western states have their version of 'Offical Secrets Act', which
protect political and corporate actors from both public outrage and due process!
FREEDOM of MOVEMENT - this has served at least 4 functions -
1. People are consumers > which services Corporate profits
2. People are workers > which services Corporate coffers
3. immigration services a xenophobic agenca - enflaming people
on the Right which serves as a valuable buffer to inquiries into
other facets of political life - corruption for instance
4. Like Identity Politics, this is an exercise in moral flag waving -
'look, see how ethical we are'.
In the near future, when heat and drought make it impossible to grow grains at scale, ALL bets are off.
It's complex, but they're on a path that is dystopian
Very interesting. Thank him for taking the time to interview with you. I learned a lot. Mostly, I don't think most people, at least myself, fit in any shape hole perfectly when it comes to economic & world politics.