Any assistance to “the people” is criticized as socialism, while the $ Billions given to corporations via grants, tax reductions, etc are considered bail outs in the neoliberal circles.
Funny isn’t it? And they always find funds for private companies bailouts, but austerity is what we get when they need to look at people rather than companies, for that there’s always a low cap, to companies it’s seen as an investment of public funds, when it’s for the public good, well it’s seen as an expense rather than an investment.
I thank Ronald Reagan for the wealth gap when he sold the trickle down economy to the average and below average wage earners in America. That was the first big shift flipping the tax burden to the average middle class American and increasing America's debt to the scale it is now.
Have a look at when this talk took place. It was poste *MAY 2016* I'm an engineer who started looking into economics because of the constant interference in engineering from people with economics and business degrees, but mostly economics degrees. I had an odd little consulting job about 7 years ago (around the time of this talk). I uncovered an incredible time bomb that is going to destroy the Australian economy unless its dealt with. Our government is trying to patch the job, but they are totally trapped by economic thinking. One of the things I discovered is that economic education is now totally dominated by neoliberal ideology. We often hear complaints from the political right that leftists have taken over education. What we *NEVER* hear is how the neoliberals have almost completely taken over economics education. So it doesn't matter if a college graduate is leftist of not *ALMOST ALL* of the economics they would have studied are about markets. As an engineer I did Econ 101 as an option. The entire semester was spent looking at the basics of supply & demand markets. There was NOTHING on the various economic models or the history of economics. At one point I asked the professor what the math was behind these models, because he just drew S&D graph S&D after graph with different variations of the curves. As an engineer if we draw a graph we have real experimental data or we have a formula. His answer still stuns me: "This is economics we don't do math!" He did clarify they do statistics at higher levels. *THAT WAS IN 1987* Listen to what she (and others) are describing in 2016. Look at where we are at in 2022.
@@bighands69 You do know that Marx was actually an economist not a political theorist? I'm an engineer and started looking into economics a few years ago because I got tired of clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects. I basically wanted to be able to push back on their garbage and nonsense. 3 things I found out were that: 1) The capitalism we have right now is NOT the capitalism that Adam Smith described in Wealth of nations, but that's hotly debated. 2) Marx was economist but what we now know as Marxism is a combination of economics and political ideology. 3) Both Marx & Smith were pushing against the existing economic system called mercantilism which was basically nationalism driven by state controlled monopolies. Its sort of like an industrialised version of feudalism and national power over other nations was pushed through commerce. FYI - I'd never heard anything about mercantilism until I heard Mark Blyth (Brown U.) interview Eric Helleiner who wrote a book about Neo-mercantilism. He thinks the Chinese haven't become capitalist but have done a revamp of mercantilism. Things like the predatory nature of "Belt & Road" is about subjugating other nations through mercantile trade. This is why the west has so much trouble with China and doing business with China.
Brown's Undoing the Demos is one of the best books about the economic dynamics over the past 35-40 years. Includes great historic, political, and economic understanding, and shows how economism and a kind of competitive totalitarianism has replaced the kinder FDR (Keynesian) democratic-capitalism combination. Another great read is A Brief History of Neo-liberalism by David Harvey.
@@aaronaragon7838 I found Gary Gurstle's book (and talks on) "The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order" very helpful; similarly, his prequel (compendium) "Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order," as well as Thomas Frank's account of the Democratic Party's conversion to neoliberalism, "Listen Liberal," very informative. These authors get a lot of coverage on UA-cam, if you don't want to read the books or spend the money. If you're really into it, you might want to read J.S. Mill's "Principles of Political Economy" to get a sense of the "neo" in the liberal; i.e., the neoliberals are descendants of, but also opposed to, classical liberalism, as exemplified by Mill. E.g., while Mill believed in "free enterprise," he also believed that economics and politics are necessarily (rationally) intertwined; the neoliberals not only separate the two (citizens have no recourse to economic policy through the political process), but abrogate 'the political' entirely and give it over to technocracy and 'expert' elites. As Brown points out here, the neoliberals are, for that reason, opposed to modernity in general: democracy, and all that comes and goes with it: exit, stage right. One of the ways we're de-natured by neoliberalism that Brown doesn't mention is that the owners of the means of production take away our rational right to self-determination: they want to re-craft human nature; instead of a self legislated democracy, we're beholden to the fiats of an expert class of technocrats who do their employers' bidding by administering, managing, and enforcing the cutthroat capitalist "society." For all intents and purposes, this society is for the winners of the "free markets" (i.e., the owners of the U.S.A.), not us. Citizenship becomes completely transactional, objectified, and commodified under their regime. Which is to say, we're not citizen subjects, in the model of the Enlightenment: we're slaves. It's the markets and the people who own them that are "free." That's what makes neoliberalism "new" or different from the democratic propositions of the Enlightenment-era classical liberals. Or you can just call the whole thing unregulated capitalism or corporatism and its inevitable bridge to technocratic fascism. Anyway, that's a start.
@@aaronaragon7838 Check the responses to your comment, "Where did the term 'neoliberalism' come from? What exactly is it? Isn't it just Reagan conservatism?" Let me know what you think.
Economic systems are tools for societies to use, not the other way around. Neoliberalism will inevitably fail, but not until after many deaths & much suffering.
Fantastic point by Dr. Brown regarding the Promise of Modernity that technology and or sophistication would enable modern humans to take control of their lives i.e quality of life no longer left up to nature or "the fates". Adding to that modernity has the potential to make Society better however it has been hijacked by the profit motive or as she calls it markets. This takes all the benefit of modernity away from Society (who by the way developed modernity as a group) and gives it to market elites.
If I understand her overall message, is that markets and capitalism aren't necessarily joined to popular rule, nor do they inherently serve the popular interest. Obvious enough, but I like that she didn't dwell on making accusations and stirring up hatred, rather unpacking the basic logic of it. We need more clear explanations like this. Thumbs up.
@@DanielMazahreh AOC. anything else you need? This lady did a great job of not turning me off to her ideas. I am a staunch free market advocate and I allowed her to permeate my thought on the matter due to her delivery.
Brown was really excellent to listen to and gave understandable explanations to complex systems. Would like to hear her position on the affect of immigration on most vulnerable citizens and the economics of society in general.
Thomas Picketty's "Capital in the Twenty First Century" totally changed my way of thinking. His thesis, that advanced nations are now utilizing Dual Economies to accelerate the concentration of wealth to the top, opened my eyes to a lot of things which were previously difficult for me to understand. Everything that gets said in the public realm about free markets led me to believe those at the top must not be able to see how their preferred policies were creating slower economic growth and eliminating social mobility. Afterward and since, I've understood that's the point.
Neoliberalism is an attempt to explain the contemporary political-economic order. It basically has no real meaning that isn't already encompassed by the term liberalism but is more specific to privatization, deregulation, free markets, erosion of government oversight, and erosion of public ownership. Ultimately, markets are an inefficient way of ensuring everyone's basic needs are met. The management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement - in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.
@@destroytheboxes there are many human motivations. Are you just a consumer or do you produce art, grow food, or do anything creative for pleasure? Or is it all destruction of production for your consumption? Most life on this planet exists fantastically, in accordance with other life-with no interest except at best and in merriad ways, survival. Stop priming your survival system looking for the death move. If for a second you contemplate this state of existence you can fathom sharing it with another.
Consumerism, in itself does not create true wealth. But productivity, in it's essence does... ...and anyone, with insight and initiative, can lend power to this...
It's in their benefit to have "free markets" when they have such a head start in the race -- he who has the financial wherewithal most likely wins the competition.
@@watching99134I think what he is saying is that even value systems are even under competition themselves and even evolutionary speaking whomever rises up after the destruction will be the winner and establish the value system whether it's capitalism, communism, theocracy, monarchs, etc. Even ppl engage in value system competition as a means to create their own games to beat other games aka meta competition (competence for the dominant players and slave morality for the less advantaged).
If you don't like her or ideas ... Fine. But all you have to do is listen to the interview from 17:00 to the end to understand the horrors of free market with no oversight.
It's ironic that neoliberalism, which was based off of avoidance of centrally planning the economy and markets for the sake of avoiding authoritarianism, lead to people in today's society wanting authoritarianism because those people associate freedom with problems caused by the market.
Who wants authoritarianism? I don't know of a single person who does. If you mean, socialism, we want democratic socilaism where people are in charge via meetings, unions, organising, voting etc.
I'm thrilled that the necessary bluntness of the way this knowledge should be presented has been done here; and put in a first class of critical lucid and fully understandable language and speech. (So much so that I fear I have lost my own abilities in these categories as I attempt to write this!🙃) Mein Gott, the message must be heard kudos to you for your part done with this video. A book I must read immediately
@@basedlibertarianz910 Rousseau used to say that technology destroyes human nature. But surely this is an achievement, yes the markets are not all bad, but we want to improve the economies, a dispute of ideologies is clearly cheap political.
Thanks for this great conversation. With what appears to be neoliberals are now in charge, I find the line between neoliberals and neocons is harder to define.
Neocons, to my understanding, are about national security, military, military global power, and other conservative values, not socially liberal, not socially conservative. Neocons wouldn't care about abortion or Christianity, and probably support some domestic welfare state if it keeps people satisfied so Bush can invade Iraq. Neoliberalism is what she said, market fanaticism, everything is markets, even biology and physics can maybe be explained as markets. Today, it's not so much markets of producers and consumers, but much more emphasis on financial markets, gambling, speculation. In the 1980s, the fastest ROI was buying healthy corporations on credit, leveraged stock buyouts, seizing control of the Board, and dismantling the functioning companies to sell off component parts. In some cases, it meant selling off land that the company owned and then leasing that real estate back from 3rd parties controlled or owned by financial engineers, at much higher costs to the core business. Windfall for takeover artists. How much does Microsoft have tied up in IP patents including technology of bought up competitors, to prevent costly innovation? In explanation, Neocons and Neoliberals are completely different focus.
It also doesn't help that this system gives antisocial personalities are advantaged in climbing all the organizational hierarchies, due to the increase in effectiveness of "divide and conquer" tactics... That's what we want in leadership, the most corruptible possible!
The problem is not neo-liberalism it is neo-feudalism. The crucial issue is land reform via tax reform. Why do so few academics talk about the Single Tax? Edit: Brown does mention neo-feudalism and rent extraction towards the end. This is where the focus should be, it's not a footnote.
@@mdaniels6311 I'm stating the Georgist position that our tax system needs to be updated to function with capitalism - the state has granted privilege to claim 1/3rd of the economy to one class - landowners. Much of the value they cream off is taxpayer/worker/entrepreneur funded. That's neo-feudalism. Now you've made a different claim - you say "Neoliberalism causes neo feudalism." - tell me exactly how you differ from the (free market) Georgist position.
YES, markets should have NO PLACE in our basic grade school education and public media!!! There's plenty of things in which markets should only have LIMITED presence - like healthcare and higher education. Get rid of lobbying
He says. at 7:50: "It used to be said that capitalism derives its moral legitimacy from being governed by democracy." Where is this said? Can someone provide a citation to some earlier work?
Read about liberal thinkers in that time period. John Locke, Condorcet, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Montesquieu. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness―That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” - Declaration of Independence (1776) That's the basis of liberalism, and it's economic form capitalism. It's where it took it's legitimacy, not from the authority of the markets or aristocrats. I don't have any direct quotes, but he probably refers to Karl Marx. It was his critique that liberalism at the start was supposed to be for everybody, while in reality, the way the economy was designed, it only benefitted the few, so the revolution never happened. Aristocrats simply got rid of the king and stayed in power.
The purpose of democracy was to give everyone a say in the rules. It has nothing to do with sharing unless people vote for sharing and people have a right under democracy to vote not to share.
Nations and decision makers must consider how their socioeconomic structures and activities impact on the environment, how does democracy ensure sustainable societies when the masses are continually bombarded with messages to consume things. We are consumers in a market economy that ignores and greenwashes the impacts of economic activities.
Free market capitalism is naturally equated with democracy because they both imply a freedom of choice. A more honest reflection of the will of a free thinking majority. A synergy, a symbiosis even. The fact that our economies and our societies more broadly cannot function without some form of government and government intervention and regulation seems to be lost on some people. It's like government is forever preventing the market from being free and functioning at maximum efficiency as if, if left entirely to its own devices, the market could be trusted to forever self correct for the greater good or that there wouldn't be someone trying to gain undue influence and game it.
Would be interesting to hear something about neoliberalism as ultimate form of social control (for good and bad). Also, could technology, as I believe it can, must and will, facilitate a compromise between political and mercantile for common good.
No, because it was and is the rich white male libertarian technocrats - that rich white male supremacist misogynist scum horde of Silicon Valley - who caused most of the problem in the first place, and they did it deliberately in order to keep women and blacks down and poor with no opportunity. And the half of this country that's in poverty, is mostly women. Because of systemic job/economic discrimination that's only been made worse in libertarian techie-land. And make no mistake, it's women who've suffered the most and fared the worst these past 40 years: Poverty. Human trafficking. No opportunity or hope. So those greedy, entitled rich white male 4-Chan dwelling shitbags need to be relieved of their wealth and be the first to get frog-marched to the guillotines - with Curtis Yarvin being made as the first example.
An interesting conversation. Most everyone likes the idea of democracy, even if they are unhappy with their so-called "democratic" governments. We don't want an elite class _ruling over us_, and shutting us out from the process of policy formation. At the same time, in particular contexts, expertise really _is_ required. For example: is climate change real, and are we causing it? Shall we ask random people on the street, or is it more sensible to ask climate scientists? If you are sick, will you ask random people for a diagnosis, or will you go see a Doctor? I believe we need a democratic system that still makes a point of getting experts involved when expertise is required. Paying special attention to what experts have to say is _not_ inherently undemocratic. Anyone who's interested and has the required expertise should be able to get involved _without_ running any campaign. How do we recognize experts? It helps that _experts can recognize each other_. Instead of choosing a few people to rule over us every few years, we need a system that enables continuous involvement by the populace. A good system should also work well even if 90% of the population is disengaged. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a society that's working well, where you don't feel a constant obligation to attend town hall meetings, or take part in protests? We definitely don't want to be shut out from governance, but at the same time most of us don't want to be constantly engaged in the process. When we _do_ want to get involved, there should be a path in front of us that enables direct engagement, even if in a particular context that path may include the acquisition of expertise. I don't claim to have this all figured out, and I can guarantee that a new design for government won't come from one person. This will require imagination, collaboration, experimentation, and iteration. The effort begins with a shared recognition that what we are doing is not working, and a will to do better.
We have a problem in human nature. Greed, as in the pathological absolute need to get everything for me, myself and I, and leave nothing for others. And the fact that power corrupts people, always. It´s shown in scientifically, it happens to everyone, to different degrees. Have to check if I can find a link to the study...
We do not have a democracy unless you have an informed public, I agree that you have highlighted a big problem that inherent in democracy, i think it comes down to how you frame arguments to the public. When you have privately owned media systems which put issues like climate change on a level footing with denialism you end up with skewed public perceptions. The BBC was taken to court for this, what they should have done was frame it in proportion to the consensus by those who have the knowledge so - 9 climate scientist vs 1 denier, public perceptions would have been skewed in the right direction under these circumstances. Had that been the case in the 90's and early 2000's, i dont think we would be having the problems we are dealing with now. The other thing we will need is to properly teach what democracy is in schools, for most it is just a trip down to the voting booth every 4-5 yrs when you reach the age of 18! (even if they can be arsed with that). Protestors are portrayed as aimless complainers who should get out and get a job and the real issues are kept, as much as is possible, out of the public domain altogether, if there are any exceptions to that, real information is mixed so ubiquitously with false information it becomes impossible to make a rational decision. Thankfully the internet is making good information easier to access but its a two edged sword, there are armies of people who are trolling cyberspace with false information and narratives it can just as easily work in the opposite direction.
Democracy will only ever really work once the economic system is democratized. Today its an undemocratic elite that Control this sphere and therefore most of the Resources..
@TheLyingTruthTeller Whilst it is true that certain kinds or personality traits and flaws of character predispose people to abuse of power if they have any, especially towards those in even lower position, there was a study published in Finnish MSM of MSM´s ,YLE (Finland´s public broadcasting company), which may make it lacking credibility, website few months ago, where this "power corrupts" -claim was studied to painstaking detail, and in very low positions of power as well, and the study showed that within time power indeed corrupts everyone to a degree, in ways one wouldn´t expect. I tried to find the original study, as I read it in Finnish from Yle website, and I´m not sure if it was done in Finland or elsewhere. But I´ll check if I can find it with relative ease, and put a link if I find it. Anyway, the known corrupting qualities of power should NOT be used as an excuse of it. For recent times at least, the world has been full of more and more corrupt leaders and "lobbyists", going to lengths in their hunger for political, military, economic etc. power, all the way to assassinations, wars, genocides and so on. Communist dictators, all kind of dictators, tyrants, mass murderers... The fact that the western society got to grow as civilized and relatively equal opportunity -giving base suggests though, that there has been less corrupted, or maybe even actually righteous people in power at some point of time, to make it so, and succeeding to some extent against all the odds. Freedom of speech! Which EÜ, UK and UN are all trying to get rid off by different means, USA being different due to amendments of constitution, but Patriot Act made the surveillance state... islam is promoted in the west, even though it´s the most disgusting, retarded and uncivilized "religion" ever heard of... Too much to write all, but it seems, at the moment, corruption is on the winning side, and that fucks me up!
no body has any issue with expertise. its power over thats the issue. when youre sick you go to your doc for a diagnosis. thats you trusting the authority of your doctor, based on their expertise. its not your doc ruling over you. i have no problem listening to, trusting, and respecting the expertise and authority of climate scientists. when it comes to policy, we make one together.
Informing the electorate is the single most important obsticle to a rational world.The few people who watch and understand at least in part these discussions and interviews will never reach an electable majority . Until then I fear we will continue to be governed by leaders chosen by the least informed of us. The daily diet of misinformation of important issues or worse ignoring those issues fed to us by news agencies is poisoning our chances of making any real progress. I have no answers to this glaring problem, but surely there must be one.
"I said in my previous article about "economic fascism"... you have a system where the government supports the interests of "big business" at the expense of everyone else, especially the "left wing" interests, such as the unions and employee rights in general. Given this lifeboat by the government, this system encourages inefficiency, irresponsibility and corruption in those corporations themselves, which are necessarily economically supported by the government when the need arises. In other words, you have a system where profit is private, and debt is public - the corporations take the profits, and the government (the taxpayer) absorbs corporate losses. This system reinforces a corporate oligarchy that is economically supported by the government; the taxpayers/electorate can do little about this if the major parties in the country all support this system. Corporate sponsorship of those parties also encourages political patronage, as do the necessary "connections" (another form of corruption) that political parties need from corporations in order to gain financial support." leedanielhughes.blogspot.com/2012/07/neo-liberalism-is-new-fascism.html
I don’t agree with Brown’s understanding of the reach of markets. Markets do not govern as such but represent the best economic rationality we have. If people through elections reject the Bernie Sanders of the world consistently which Brown rejects, the problem is hers and that of her academically privileged deluded academic following. I would like to see her in debate with others who represent a more balanced real world view of how markets actually work.
Coming to this video, I wanted to google Wendy Brown to see any other things she's done and to see her Wikipedia page lists THE Judith Butler as her partner was honestly a really pleasant surprise.
YES, PEOPLE, QUALITY! Make quality that first thing on which you are basing your purchase decisions! It's actually for your budget in the long run to demand and buy the quality item first, and not have to keep rebuying cheap garbage
This was a good interview, but what I am taken aback with is how she salivates over Thomas Piketty. I agree with what is being said but what is amazing is Marx said pretty much the same thing in a deeper more explanatory fashion 150 years ago and is not mentioned. Talk about ruling ideology.
The way this world is going - the significance of a single human being who does not have a "brand" or "platform" and thus not marketed - becomes a voiceless creature on his way to disintegration - to disposability - to nothingness. The meaning or influence of a human being is then translated into money or "net worth." One must not look away - the MONEY PEOPLE are in control. That is the simplest way to say it.
So were the bank bailouts after the crash in 2008 an example of neo-liberalism? I think not. Surely the government should have said “you’re on your own.”
I'm confused. Can somebody help me understand. People keep saying that neoliberalism supports low taxes and low regulation, but this is not my experience running a business in the USA. My experience is high taxes and high regulation for myself and low taxes and low regulation combined with government support for my big boy competition. Can someone help me reconcile this?
See. The problem there is you are not rich. The government is a bunch of rich people funded by rich people to help rich people stay rich. Sometimes the rich don't want other people who are not rich to start up new companies. New companies might compete with their companies and mean that might risk them being less rich and not in control of their niche in the free market. They can't make it illegal to set up new companies, no matter how hard they 'lobby' (bribe) the politicians; instead they make it really difficult for new small companies to get started. They have a variety of ways of doing this, for instance, by ensuring new regulations are introduced and ensuring the small companies have to jump through extra regulation hoops and red tape which they can't afford to deal with but a much larger, established company can. Or they can pay specialist accountants to exploit international tax loops holes; whereas the smaller newstart has to pay a heftier donestic corporate tax,effectively giving them a financial advantage over the would be competitor. These hurdles effectively create additional barriers to entry within a market. They are examples of how once inequality becomes seeded within a free market then the laws meant to create a level playing field for all then become subverted by the rich and the powerful to protect the financial interests of the rich and the powerful.
@@user-wp8yxMaybe I'm mistaking your tone, but why the sarcasm? I was being slightly irreverent but sincere! 😅 Corporate Regulatory Capture in antitrust/competition law and our democracies becomming plutocracies when our legislators are bought and paid for by oligarchs is a hell of a thing. Breaks my heart watching it unfold - its the political econonic equivalent of watching a slow car crash 😟
@@somecuriosities I am not being sarcastic. I'm being very serious. I would hope you would respond in a serious manner also. I believe truth in political discussions is an important thing. Without it, we are just talking in circles and not solving anything.
@@user-wp8yx Aww! Thanks, I wasn't sure! 😅 It's not often one gets a compliment from a stranger on the internet when discussing poltical economic matters in this day and age, so was kinda caught me off guard there lol. Thanks again!
One of the requirements to be a,political candidate, on the federal level, should be participation on Jeopardy to see how agile their mind is at processing abstract ideas. I think it'll eliminate a lot of time and,money
That description in the short script reminds me of rational choice theory and the economic theory of democracy field. Isnt it similar? I Think Wendy Brown is refering to that at a deeper level.
The Ancient Greeks debated the dangers of wealth and wealth difference. They were disturbed by it being 50 times. What is it now? The bigger the wealth difference the greater the social fracture and the bigger the social fracture the greater the economic dysfunction. Which eventually leads to civilization [the divisive process] collapsing because too much division undermines the inclusive process called culture. Civilization is useful for specialism to occur so what is so good for anyone that civilization collapses? So why is it destroying the social currency of culture? Obsessive compulsive billionaire wealth accumulation addicts are driving the problem because within neoliberalism they have the greatest economical leverage thus power. Cooperation obtains our species it's greatest survival optimum and it is our greatest mistake to cooperate with neoliberalism. And WE do have a right to defend ourselves from the billionaires mental illness which is proving to be deadly to our entire species.
Is "democracy" freedom from choice? The marketplace of ideas and political expression is the essence of democracy. What the professor wants is a system of arbitrary and predetermined outcomes. Egalitarianism requires totalitarian systems. We've been down that road with Stalin and Mao.
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented.
Democratic is people direct participation yet to avoid mob rule the public must choose representatives and to avoid them turning tyranns you need to constitute rules by which they are to perfom their duties give power to the people to forcefully remove them if need be. I believe that is what the United States of America are , a constitutional republic not Democracy if I am wrong I stand corrected.
Wendy Brown's writings has had a huge influence on my academic career, started during my undergrad and beyond. After I read an excerpt from Undoing the Demos in a polisci class,.i ran out to buy the book. That book set the trajectory for my academic career. She is a genius
if markets were totally unregulated there would be no issues. the problem is that the market users are totally regulated whereas the market makers are totally unregulated and worst still are totally shielded from the consequences of their actions. in short government governs the masses for the benefit of the unregulated few. put another way government is the muscle for the .01%
Neocons will generally accept limitations on the market for the petrification of culture and tradition, though nowhere near to the same extent as paleo/trad-cons, and they support far more aggressive foreign policies than neoliberals, but they're both part of the same political project of destroying democracy and reducing the control most people have over their lives
We must expand democracy not only in government but also in our economy. Ending dictatorial relations is how we will move on to the next stage of human development.
100% we need democracy in our work places and housing. We should elect our landlords, as they do with council housing system in the UK. We should get to vote for representatives who sit in thr board. We should be unionised, and get to vote on whether we accept salaries or not (collective bargaining)
i believe only education and medicine should be government managed. i believe everything else including militias should be privatized and that the idea of monopoly on violence should be abolished.
That's because in meaningful ways it still is and that was actually originally intentional. Not many know this but conservatism was invented with essentially the start of liberalism with the French Revolution and was invented as a means of economically sustaining aristocratic power under a shifting political landscape towards liberalism. Neoliberalism is similar in a sense as it also was a means of political regulation by the powerful for a similar purpose. The cyclic period that neoliberalism was attempting to reinstate was the political power of the capitalist class during the Gilded Age, which had diminished due to reform by political leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and FDR meaningfully - and throughout the world during the Great Depression as is was a time of left leaning reform. Capitalism has always had contradictions here with its compatibility with democracy. In some meaningful ways the world has regulated to minimize these contradictions but in others the fundamental contradictions have only expanded, i.e the power wealth inequality has in and of itself towards influencing politics in undemocratic ways. Problems such as that example cannot be solved with capitalism as the dominant means of production. It is in this hierarchical divide in wealth that capitalism recreates aristocracy and feudalism as at any time the capitalist class in interest of preserving or enriching their will manipulate political democracies to their will as much as possible with their lopsided means of power.
Left-wing people’s often don’t have a boundary around who compromises the demos, so it remains an abstraction. Only a form of what some call right-wing populism can articulate a demos as an exclusive people based on location, race, ethnicity, customs, religion, and language (hard indentity).
@@Stefan556 That is the "representative problem" , a term they use in management which can also apply to politics. Political science after 1950 has borrowed such terms from the economic science.
But democracy itself is a marketization of policies. The “consumer” - the individual voter - gets to choose the political representation most likely to favor her interests. If the speaker is criticising marketisation, she is in many ways criticising democracy itself while playing with words. I’d call this insincere and dubious from the get-go. It is indeed globalisation and neo-liberalism which has given a funnel escape for disadvantaged minorities everywhere. In a liberal system, there are no minorities, since the individual is free to choose her path.
you can choose between the 2 choices presented to you but you don't get to choose which 2 choices to be presented ( ie neoliberalism vs rainbow flavored neoliberalism )
the word "threatens" is palsy and misleading. It (Neo Liberalism Globalised Economics) 'own$' democracy. Will these high-horse institutional experts loose their jobs or grants if they spoke clearly and honestly?
This is what happened in the United States starting in the 1980's under the Reagan administration that adopted the economic principles of trickle down economics inline with the Milton Friedman economic theory that "an entity's greatest responsibility is to the satisfaction of the shareholders", which has led to the destruction of the working classes. Friedman's theory has been debunked from the start by a slew of highly recognized economist, an social scientist, and more importantly it has debunked itself through it's practical application since 1981 through today by the evidence of it's destruction to the working classes. Nothing substantial has trickled down to the whole of society. In fact wealth has become concentrated at the top of the United States wealth hierarchy, wages have stayed well below inflation in consumer good prices, cost of education and healthcare. The middle class has been in decline and there are more people living in poverty. Along side of this the Reagan administration put into effect the Lewis Powell Memo's mandate for the corporate domination of United States democracy, and as we've witnessed government legislation and it's institutions have exceedingly dominated by corporate influences.to the point that legislation and law is not only influenced but wholely written by corporate lobbyist and institutions such as the US Chamber of Congress, and the Federalist Society. Effectively the United States of America could be referred to as the United Corporate States of America.
Any assistance to “the people” is criticized as socialism, while the $ Billions given to corporations via grants, tax reductions, etc are considered bail outs in the neoliberal circles.
The Truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny isn’t it? And they always find funds for private companies bailouts, but austerity is what we get when they need to look at people rather than companies, for that there’s always a low cap, to companies it’s seen as an investment of public funds, when it’s for the public good, well it’s seen as an expense rather than an investment.
Okay but Dr. Wendy Brown *IS* a socialist. Anything wrong with that?
The GOP screams socialism every time the poor folk get a crumb.
And neither are socialism. Government spending is NOT socialism.
We're living it right now. The proof is in the wealth gap, and the wealthy power grabs we witness in politics. Fantastic conversation.
The Greeks debated the dangers of wealth and wealth difference.
They were disturbed by it being 50 times. What is it now?
I thank Ronald Reagan for the wealth gap when he sold the trickle down economy to the average and below average wage earners in America. That was the first big shift flipping the tax burden to the average middle class American and increasing America's debt to the scale it is now.
Neo-feudalism, rent extraction. Nailed it!
Prof. Brown’s explication is lucid, incisive, compelling: she breaks it down, showing us clearly what is in play and at stake. Brilliant. Kudos.
Really fascinating conversation. I'm glad people are having these discussions and they are being published. I'd hope things can change.
Have a look at when this talk took place. It was poste *MAY 2016*
I'm an engineer who started looking into economics because of the constant interference in engineering from people with economics and business degrees, but mostly economics degrees. I had an odd little consulting job about 7 years ago (around the time of this talk).
I uncovered an incredible time bomb that is going to destroy the Australian economy unless its dealt with. Our government is trying to patch the job, but they are totally trapped by economic thinking. One of the things I discovered is that economic education is now totally dominated by neoliberal ideology. We often hear complaints from the political right that leftists have taken over education. What we *NEVER* hear is how the neoliberals have almost completely taken over economics education.
So it doesn't matter if a college graduate is leftist of not *ALMOST ALL* of the economics they would have studied are about markets. As an engineer I did Econ 101 as an option. The entire semester was spent looking at the basics of supply & demand markets. There was NOTHING on the various economic models or the history of economics. At one point I asked the professor what the math was behind these models, because he just drew S&D graph S&D after graph with different variations of the curves. As an engineer if we draw a graph we have real experimental data or we have a formula. His answer still stuns me: "This is economics we don't do math!" He did clarify they do statistics at higher levels. *THAT WAS IN 1987*
Listen to what she (and others) are describing in 2016.
Look at where we are at in 2022.
So is it fascinating that certain people claim to be economists but are really just Marxists.
@@bighands69 You do know that Marx was actually an economist not a political theorist?
I'm an engineer and started looking into economics a few years ago because I got tired of clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects. I basically wanted to be able to push back on their garbage and nonsense.
3 things I found out were that:
1) The capitalism we have right now is NOT the capitalism that Adam Smith described in Wealth of nations, but that's hotly debated.
2) Marx was economist but what we now know as Marxism is a combination of economics and political ideology.
3) Both Marx & Smith were pushing against the existing economic system called mercantilism which was basically nationalism driven by state controlled monopolies. Its sort of like an industrialised version of feudalism and national power over other nations was pushed through commerce.
FYI - I'd never heard anything about mercantilism until I heard Mark Blyth (Brown U.) interview Eric Helleiner who wrote a book about Neo-mercantilism. He thinks the Chinese haven't become capitalist but have done a revamp of mercantilism. Things like the predatory nature of "Belt & Road" is about subjugating other nations through mercantile trade. This is why the west has so much trouble with China and doing business with China.
Your hope is unfounded. The last eight years since this talk should prove that.
@@adamrosendahl8090 you expect change over night?
Brown's Undoing the Demos is one of the best books about the economic dynamics over the past 35-40 years. Includes great historic, political, and economic understanding, and shows how economism and a kind of competitive totalitarianism has replaced the kinder FDR (Keynesian) democratic-capitalism combination. Another great read is A Brief History of Neo-liberalism by David Harvey.
Thanks for the reading list...where did the term 'neoliberalism' come from? What exactly is it? Isn't it just Reagan conservatism?
@@aaronaragon7838 I found Gary Gurstle's book (and talks on) "The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order" very helpful; similarly, his prequel (compendium) "Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order," as well as Thomas Frank's account of the Democratic Party's conversion to neoliberalism, "Listen Liberal," very informative. These authors get a lot of coverage on UA-cam, if you don't want to read the books or spend the money. If you're really into it, you might want to read J.S. Mill's "Principles of Political Economy" to get a sense of the "neo" in the liberal; i.e., the neoliberals are descendants of, but also opposed to, classical liberalism, as exemplified by Mill. E.g., while Mill believed in "free enterprise," he also believed that economics and politics are necessarily (rationally) intertwined; the neoliberals not only separate the two (citizens have no recourse to economic policy through the political process), but abrogate 'the political' entirely and give it over to technocracy and 'expert' elites. As Brown points out here, the neoliberals are, for that reason, opposed to modernity in general: democracy, and all that comes and goes with it: exit, stage right. One of the ways we're de-natured by neoliberalism that Brown doesn't mention is that the owners of the means of production take away our rational right to self-determination: they want to re-craft human nature; instead of a self legislated democracy, we're beholden to the fiats of an expert class of technocrats who do their employers' bidding by administering, managing, and enforcing the cutthroat capitalist "society." For all intents and purposes, this society is for the winners of the "free markets" (i.e., the owners of the U.S.A.), not us. Citizenship becomes completely transactional, objectified, and commodified under their regime. Which is to say, we're not citizen subjects, in the model of the Enlightenment: we're slaves. It's the markets and the people who own them that are "free." That's what makes neoliberalism "new" or different from the democratic propositions of the Enlightenment-era classical liberals. Or you can just call the whole thing unregulated capitalism or corporatism and its inevitable bridge to technocratic fascism. Anyway, that's a start.
@@aaronaragon7838 Check the responses to your comment, "Where did the term 'neoliberalism' come from? What exactly is it? Isn't it just Reagan conservatism?" Let me know what you think.
Yeah, I got it. You write well. I am going to get the Gurstle book. Thank you.
@@aaronaragon7838 Forgot to mention Catherine Liu; she's really good on neoliberalism/PMC and is all over UA-cam.
This is a vitally important subject of conversation that needs national attention.
Economic systems are tools for societies to use, not the other way around. Neoliberalism will inevitably fail, but not until after many deaths & much suffering.
Brown’s explication is lucid, incisive: she breaks it down, showing us clearly what is in play and at stake. Brilliant. Kudos.
Yet, it's entirely worthless.
@@tuckerbugeaterTo imbeciles, everything is pointless
"Filling the void of out-of-control is faith in the markets". Brilliant.
Fantastic point by Dr. Brown regarding the Promise of Modernity that technology and or sophistication would enable modern humans to take control of their lives i.e quality of life no longer left up to nature or "the fates". Adding to that modernity has the potential to make Society better however it has been hijacked by the profit motive or as she calls it markets. This takes all the benefit of modernity away from Society (who by the way developed modernity as a group) and gives it to market elites.
This is the first time I have heard Wendy Brown talk. I found it very interesting.
If I understand her overall message, is that markets and capitalism aren't necessarily joined to popular rule, nor do they inherently serve the popular interest.
Obvious enough, but I like that she didn't dwell on making accusations and stirring up hatred, rather unpacking the basic logic of it. We need more clear explanations like this. Thumbs up.
What hatred was spewed in the past? Give an example.
@@DanielMazahreh What for?
@@Tim_Climie Because I'm curious, and your comment requires some elaboration with an example.
@@DanielMazahreh You're curious that it does? Or, you're certiain?
@@DanielMazahreh AOC. anything else you need?
This lady did a great job of not turning me off to her ideas. I am a staunch free market advocate and I allowed her to permeate my thought on the matter due to her delivery.
Excellent interview
Very deep insight and analysis into the sinews of neoliberalism
and the challenges of human civilisation and governance
Brown was really excellent to listen to and gave understandable explanations to complex systems. Would like to hear her position on the affect of immigration on most vulnerable citizens and the economics of society in general.
She has a new book called "Waning Sovereignty, Walled States" that speaks to that topic. I really liked it, you may like it too.
One of the best videos I have seen that explains what's going on. Thank you.
Thomas Picketty's "Capital in the Twenty First Century" totally changed my way of thinking. His thesis, that advanced nations are now utilizing Dual Economies to accelerate the concentration of wealth to the top, opened my eyes to a lot of things which were previously difficult for me to understand. Everything that gets said in the public realm about free markets led me to believe those at the top must not be able to see how their preferred policies were creating slower economic growth and eliminating social mobility. Afterward and since, I've understood that's the point.
Neoliberalism is an attempt to explain the contemporary political-economic order. It basically has no real meaning that isn't already encompassed by the term liberalism but is more specific to privatization, deregulation, free markets, erosion of government oversight, and erosion of public ownership. Ultimately, markets are an inefficient way of ensuring everyone's basic needs are met. The management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement - in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.
What motivates a selfish person?
There’s 7.4 billion currently. Where is their motivation?
@@destroytheboxes Self preservation and greed.
@@destroytheboxes there are many human motivations. Are you just a consumer or do you produce art, grow food, or do anything creative for pleasure? Or is it all destruction of production for your consumption?
Most life on this planet exists fantastically, in accordance with other life-with no interest except at best and in merriad ways, survival. Stop priming your survival system looking for the death move. If for a second you contemplate this state of existence you can fathom sharing it with another.
@@destroytheboxes people are not one dimensional “ selfish “ creatures . Civilization was created via cooperation and people show empathy and care .
Consumerism, in itself does not create true wealth. But productivity, in it's essence does... ...and anyone, with insight and initiative, can lend power to this...
It's in their benefit to have "free markets" when they have such a head start in the race -- he who has the financial wherewithal most likely wins the competition.
@Teemu M. what?
@Teemu M. Soviet and Chinese communism began among people with nothing, what do you mean?
@@watching99134I think what he is saying is that even value systems are even under competition themselves and even evolutionary speaking whomever rises up after the destruction will be the winner and establish the value system whether it's capitalism, communism, theocracy, monarchs, etc. Even ppl engage in value system competition as a means to create their own games to beat other games aka meta competition (competence for the dominant players and slave morality for the less advantaged).
If you don't like her or ideas ... Fine. But all you have to do is listen to the interview from 17:00 to the end to understand the horrors of free market with no oversight.
It's ironic that neoliberalism, which was based off of avoidance of centrally planning the economy and markets for the sake of avoiding authoritarianism, lead to people in today's society wanting authoritarianism because those people associate freedom with problems caused by the market.
Good observation: that is why polarizing ideologies suck, and ultimately unachievable democracy is the only thing worth aiming for.....
Who wants authoritarianism? I don't know of a single person who does. If you mean, socialism, we want democratic socilaism where people are in charge via meetings, unions, organising, voting etc.
When the markets becomes governments people become merchandise.
Excellent informative talk.
I'm thrilled that the necessary bluntness of the way this knowledge should be presented has been done here; and put in a first class of critical lucid and fully understandable language and speech. (So much so that I fear I have lost my own abilities in these categories as I attempt to write this!🙃) Mein Gott, the message must be heard kudos to you for your part done with this video. A book I must read immediately
Neoliberalism sounds just like libertarianism and the whole philosophy of the free market is God. Disturbing!
Neoliberalism is why you have all of your fancy technology. Praise the market!
@@basedlibertarianz910 the US went to the moon under Keynesian economics, a decade before neo liberalism rose.
Is democracy the philosophy that the people are God then?
@@basedlibertarianz910 Rousseau used to say that technology destroyes human nature. But surely this is an achievement, yes the markets are not all bad, but we want to improve the economies, a dispute of ideologies is clearly cheap political.
Thanks for this great conversation. With what appears to be neoliberals are now in charge, I find the line between neoliberals and neocons is harder to define.
Neocons, to my understanding, are about national security, military, military global power, and other conservative values, not socially liberal, not socially conservative. Neocons wouldn't care about abortion or Christianity, and probably support some domestic welfare state if it keeps people satisfied so Bush can invade Iraq.
Neoliberalism is what she said, market fanaticism, everything is markets, even biology and physics can maybe be explained as markets.
Today, it's not so much markets of producers and consumers, but much more emphasis on financial markets, gambling, speculation. In the 1980s, the fastest ROI was buying healthy corporations on credit, leveraged stock buyouts, seizing control of the Board, and dismantling the functioning companies to sell off component parts. In some cases, it meant selling off land that the company owned and then leasing that real estate back from 3rd parties controlled or owned by financial engineers, at much higher costs to the core business. Windfall for takeover artists.
How much does Microsoft have tied up in IP patents including technology of bought up competitors, to prevent costly innovation?
In explanation, Neocons and Neoliberals are completely different focus.
"Democracy has always been an unrealized dream", very astute
It also doesn't help that this system gives antisocial personalities are advantaged in climbing all the organizational hierarchies, due to the increase in effectiveness of "divide and conquer" tactics... That's what we want in leadership, the most corruptible possible!
The problem is not neo-liberalism it is neo-feudalism. The crucial issue is land reform via tax reform. Why do so few academics talk about the Single Tax? Edit: Brown does mention neo-feudalism and rent extraction towards the end. This is where the focus should be, it's not a footnote.
D Bruce I would suggest that neoliberalism leads to neofeudalism!
Neoliberalism causes neo feudalism. To kill the plant, you kill the root.
@@mdaniels6311 I'm stating the Georgist position that our tax system needs to be updated to function with capitalism - the state has granted privilege to claim 1/3rd of the economy to one class - landowners. Much of the value they cream off is taxpayer/worker/entrepreneur funded. That's neo-feudalism. Now you've made a different claim - you say "Neoliberalism causes neo feudalism." - tell me exactly how you differ from the (free market) Georgist position.
modernism, faith in markets, accumulation of wealth, neofeudalism, stalled social mobility, economic stagnation
Nice talk. Competition is only part of what makes us human. Cooperation is a far bigger part.
Great interview, but whoever did the audio really didn't know what they were doing, and audio is more important than video in interviews.
YES, markets should have NO PLACE in our basic grade school education and public media!!! There's plenty of things in which markets should only have LIMITED presence - like healthcare and higher education. Get rid of lobbying
Thank you for spending the time to create and share this content awareness/perspective 🙏🏾
He says. at 7:50: "It used to be said that capitalism derives its moral legitimacy from being governed by democracy." Where is this said? Can someone provide a citation to some earlier work?
Read about liberal thinkers in that time period.
John Locke, Condorcet, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Montesquieu.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness―That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” - Declaration of Independence (1776)
That's the basis of liberalism, and it's economic form capitalism. It's where it took it's legitimacy, not from the authority of the markets or aristocrats.
I don't have any direct quotes, but he probably refers to Karl Marx. It was his critique that liberalism at the start was supposed to be for everybody, while in reality, the way the economy was designed, it only benefitted the few, so the revolution never happened. Aristocrats simply got rid of the king and stayed in power.
The purpose of democracy was to give everyone a say in the rules. It has nothing to do with sharing unless people vote for sharing and people have a right under democracy to vote not to share.
Nations and decision makers must consider how their socioeconomic structures and activities impact on the environment, how does democracy ensure sustainable societies when the masses are continually bombarded with messages to consume things. We are consumers in a market economy that ignores and greenwashes the impacts of economic activities.
Need to sort that microphone quality out.
Free market capitalism is naturally equated with democracy because they both imply a freedom of choice. A more honest reflection of the will of a free thinking majority.
A synergy, a symbiosis even.
The fact that our economies and our societies more broadly cannot function without some form of government and government intervention and regulation seems to be lost on some people.
It's like government is forever preventing the market from being free and functioning at maximum efficiency as if, if left entirely to its own devices, the market could be trusted to forever self correct for the greater good or that there wouldn't be someone trying to gain undue influence and game it.
audio has echo and is terrible. Please correct this for the future, if there is one.
Would be interesting to hear something about neoliberalism as ultimate form of social control (for good and bad). Also, could technology, as I believe it can, must and will, facilitate a compromise between political and mercantile for common good.
No, because it was and is the rich white male libertarian technocrats - that rich white male supremacist misogynist scum horde of Silicon Valley - who caused most of the problem in the first place, and they did it deliberately in order to keep women and blacks down and poor with no opportunity. And the half of this country that's in poverty, is mostly women. Because of systemic job/economic discrimination that's only been made worse in libertarian techie-land. And make no mistake, it's women who've suffered the most and fared the worst these past 40 years: Poverty. Human trafficking. No opportunity or hope. So those greedy, entitled rich white male 4-Chan dwelling shitbags need to be relieved of their wealth and be the first to get frog-marched to the guillotines - with Curtis Yarvin being made as the first example.
It filled my town with dispair
If I’ve learned anything about economics it’s that change is constant, and socioeconomics must change with the times as well.
"democracy is always an unrealized dream"
So is communism and religions unrealized and, in fact, anything that threatens the wealth of oligarchs by devolving power to demos.
@@edwardfield4856 I think I fully agree, but what is "demos" at the end?
An interesting conversation. Most everyone likes the idea of democracy, even if they are unhappy with their so-called "democratic" governments. We don't want an elite class _ruling over us_, and shutting us out from the process of policy formation. At the same time, in particular contexts, expertise really _is_ required. For example: is climate change real, and are we causing it? Shall we ask random people on the street, or is it more sensible to ask climate scientists? If you are sick, will you ask random people for a diagnosis, or will you go see a Doctor? I believe we need a democratic system that still makes a point of getting experts involved when expertise is required. Paying special attention to what experts have to say is _not_ inherently undemocratic. Anyone who's interested and has the required expertise should be able to get involved _without_ running any campaign. How do we recognize experts? It helps that _experts can recognize each other_.
Instead of choosing a few people to rule over us every few years, we need a system that enables continuous involvement by the populace. A good system should also work well even if 90% of the population is disengaged. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a society that's working well, where you don't feel a constant obligation to attend town hall meetings, or take part in protests? We definitely don't want to be shut out from governance, but at the same time most of us don't want to be constantly engaged in the process. When we _do_ want to get involved, there should be a path in front of us that enables direct engagement, even if in a particular context that path may include the acquisition of expertise.
I don't claim to have this all figured out, and I can guarantee that a new design for government won't come from one person. This will require imagination, collaboration, experimentation, and iteration. The effort begins with a shared recognition that what we are doing is not working, and a will to do better.
We have a problem in human nature. Greed, as in the pathological absolute need to get everything for me, myself and I, and leave nothing for others. And the fact that power corrupts people, always. It´s shown in scientifically, it happens to everyone, to different degrees. Have to check if I can find a link to the study...
We do not have a democracy unless you have an informed public, I agree that you have highlighted a big problem that inherent in democracy, i think it comes down to how you frame arguments to the public. When you have privately owned media systems which put issues like climate change on a level footing with denialism you end up with skewed public perceptions. The BBC was taken to court for this, what they should have done was frame it in proportion to the consensus by those who have the knowledge so - 9 climate scientist vs 1 denier, public perceptions would have been skewed in the right direction under these circumstances. Had that been the case in the 90's and early 2000's, i dont think we would be having the problems we are dealing with now.
The other thing we will need is to properly teach what democracy is in schools, for most it is just a trip down to the voting booth every 4-5 yrs when you reach the age of 18! (even if they can be arsed with that). Protestors are portrayed as aimless complainers who should get out and get a job and the real issues are kept, as much as is possible, out of the public domain altogether, if there are any exceptions to that, real information is mixed so ubiquitously with false information it becomes impossible to make a rational decision. Thankfully the internet is making good information easier to access but its a two edged sword, there are armies of people who are trolling cyberspace with false information and narratives it can just as easily work in the opposite direction.
Democracy will only ever really work once the economic system is democratized. Today its an undemocratic elite that Control this sphere and therefore most of the Resources..
@TheLyingTruthTeller Whilst it is true that certain kinds or personality traits and flaws of character predispose people to abuse of power if they have any, especially towards those in even lower position, there was a study published in Finnish MSM of MSM´s ,YLE (Finland´s public broadcasting company), which may make it lacking credibility, website few months ago, where this "power corrupts" -claim was studied to painstaking detail, and in very low positions of power as well, and the study showed that within time power indeed corrupts everyone to a degree, in ways one wouldn´t expect. I tried to find the original study, as I read it in Finnish from Yle website, and I´m not sure if it was done in Finland or elsewhere. But I´ll check if I can find it with relative ease, and put a link if I find it.
Anyway, the known corrupting qualities of power should NOT be used as an excuse of it. For recent times at least, the world has been full of more and more corrupt leaders and "lobbyists", going to lengths in their hunger for political, military, economic etc. power, all the way to assassinations, wars, genocides and so on. Communist dictators, all kind of dictators, tyrants, mass murderers... The fact that the western society got to grow as civilized and relatively equal opportunity -giving base suggests though, that there has been less corrupted, or maybe even actually righteous people in power at some point of time, to make it so, and succeeding to some extent against all the odds. Freedom of speech! Which EÜ, UK and UN are all trying to get rid off by different means, USA being different due to amendments of constitution, but Patriot Act made the surveillance state... islam is promoted in the west, even though it´s the most disgusting, retarded and uncivilized "religion" ever heard of... Too much to write all, but it seems, at the moment, corruption is on the winning side, and that fucks me up!
no body has any issue with expertise. its power over thats the issue. when youre sick you go to your doc for a diagnosis. thats you trusting the authority of your doctor, based on their expertise. its not your doc ruling over you.
i have no problem listening to, trusting, and respecting the expertise and authority of climate scientists. when it comes to policy, we make one together.
Informing the electorate is the single most important obsticle to a rational world.The few people who watch and understand at least in part these discussions and interviews will never reach an electable majority . Until then I fear we will continue to be governed by leaders chosen by the least informed of us. The daily diet of misinformation of important issues or worse ignoring those issues fed to us by news agencies is poisoning our chances of making any real progress. I have no answers to this glaring problem, but surely there must be one.
Your videos are too quiet. Please increase the volume.
One more scholar coming to the same conclusion.Capitolism must be tamed,its dangerous left to it's own tendencies and is also necessary...
"I said in my previous article about "economic fascism"... you have a system where the government supports the interests of "big business" at the expense of everyone else, especially the "left wing" interests, such as the unions and employee rights in general.
Given this lifeboat by the government, this system encourages inefficiency, irresponsibility and corruption in those corporations themselves, which are necessarily economically supported by the government when the need arises. In other words, you have a system where profit is private, and debt is public - the corporations take the profits, and the government (the taxpayer) absorbs corporate losses.
This system reinforces a corporate oligarchy that is economically supported by the government; the taxpayers/electorate can do little about this if the major parties in the country all support this system. Corporate sponsorship of those parties also encourages political patronage, as do the necessary "connections" (another form of corruption) that political parties need from corporations in order to gain financial support."
leedanielhughes.blogspot.com/2012/07/neo-liberalism-is-new-fascism.html
She is pushing Bolchevism comunist not fascism bc fascist still a better life
I don’t agree with Brown’s understanding of the reach of markets. Markets do not govern as such but represent the best economic rationality we have. If people through elections reject the Bernie Sanders of the world consistently which Brown rejects, the problem is hers and that of her academically privileged deluded academic following. I would like to see her in debate with others who represent a more balanced real world view of how markets actually work.
Coming to this video, I wanted to google Wendy Brown to see any other things she's done and to see her Wikipedia page lists THE Judith Butler as her partner was honestly a really pleasant surprise.
The quote in the end (the spirit in the castle is in its drawbridge) seems to be due Rene Char, which is quoted by Bourdieu.
That's it! I'm going to study economics!!
and politics
-Level playing field- is an idea that impresses me...
YES, PEOPLE, QUALITY! Make quality that first thing on which you are basing your purchase decisions! It's actually for your budget in the long run to demand and buy the quality item first, and not have to keep rebuying cheap garbage
This was a good interview, but what I am taken aback with is how she salivates over Thomas Piketty. I agree with what is being said but what is amazing is Marx said pretty much the same thing in a deeper more explanatory fashion 150 years ago and is not mentioned. Talk about ruling ideology.
Marxism us the first thing america "cancelled ".
Tell any college you are a Marxist professor you will not be hired anywhere
@@gninja92 absolutely right
The way this world is going - the significance of a single human being who
does not have a "brand" or "platform" and thus not marketed - becomes a voiceless creature on his way to disintegration - to disposability - to nothingness.
The meaning or influence of a human being
is then translated into money or "net worth."
One must not look away - the MONEY PEOPLE are in control.
That is the simplest way to say it.
She is so right.
00:00 -
1
01:58 -
2
03:56 -
3
05:54 -
4
07:52 -
5
09:50 -
6
11:48 -
7
13:47 -
8
15:45 -
9
17:43 -
can you enable adding translations?
So were the bank bailouts after the crash in 2008 an example of neo-liberalism? I think not. Surely the government should have said “you’re on your own.”
Im no professor but i already understood the interface of neo lib and democracy.
I'm confused. Can somebody help me understand. People keep saying that neoliberalism supports low taxes and low regulation, but this is not my experience running a business in the USA. My experience is high taxes and high regulation for myself and low taxes and low regulation combined with government support for my big boy competition. Can someone help me reconcile this?
See. The problem there is you are not rich. The government is a bunch of rich people funded by rich people to help rich people stay rich.
Sometimes the rich don't want other people who are not rich to start up new companies. New companies might compete with their companies and mean that might risk them being less rich and not in control of their niche in the free market. They can't make it illegal to set up new companies, no matter how hard they 'lobby' (bribe) the politicians; instead they make it really difficult for new small companies to get started. They have a variety of ways of doing this, for instance, by ensuring new regulations are introduced and ensuring the small companies have to jump through extra regulation hoops and red tape which they can't afford to deal with but a much larger, established company can. Or they can pay specialist accountants to exploit international tax loops holes; whereas the smaller newstart has to pay a heftier donestic corporate tax,effectively giving them a financial advantage over the would be competitor.
These hurdles effectively create additional barriers to entry within a market. They are examples of how once inequality becomes seeded within a free market then the laws meant to create a level playing field for all then become subverted by the rich and the powerful to protect the financial interests of the rich and the powerful.
@@somecuriosities that was a hell of a write-up. You should do a show.
@@user-wp8yxMaybe I'm mistaking your tone, but why the sarcasm? I was being slightly irreverent but sincere! 😅
Corporate Regulatory Capture in antitrust/competition law and our democracies becomming plutocracies when our legislators are bought and paid for by oligarchs is a hell of a thing. Breaks my heart watching it unfold - its the political econonic equivalent of watching a slow car crash 😟
@@somecuriosities I am not being sarcastic. I'm being very serious. I would hope you would respond in a serious manner also. I believe truth in political discussions is an important thing. Without it, we are just talking in circles and not solving anything.
@@user-wp8yx Aww! Thanks, I wasn't sure! 😅 It's not often one gets a compliment from a stranger on the internet when discussing poltical economic matters in this day and age, so was kinda caught me off guard there lol.
Thanks again!
One of the requirements to be a,political candidate, on the federal level, should be participation on Jeopardy to see how agile their mind is at processing abstract ideas. I think it'll eliminate a lot of time and,money
That description in the short script reminds me of rational choice theory and the economic theory of democracy field. Isnt it similar? I Think Wendy Brown is refering to that at a deeper level.
The Ancient Greeks debated the dangers of wealth and wealth difference. They were disturbed by it being 50 times. What is it now?
The bigger the wealth difference the greater the social fracture and the bigger the social fracture the greater the economic dysfunction.
Which eventually leads to civilization [the divisive process] collapsing because too much division undermines the inclusive process called culture.
Civilization is useful for specialism to occur so what is so good for anyone that civilization collapses? So why is it destroying the social currency of culture?
Obsessive compulsive billionaire wealth accumulation addicts are driving the problem because within neoliberalism they have the greatest economical leverage thus power.
Cooperation obtains our species it's greatest survival optimum and it is our greatest mistake to cooperate with neoliberalism.
And WE do have a right to defend ourselves from the billionaires mental illness which is proving to be deadly to our entire species.
I endorse this post. Well stated, thanks.
Is "democracy" freedom from choice? The marketplace of ideas and political expression is the essence of democracy. What the professor wants is a system of arbitrary and predetermined outcomes. Egalitarianism requires totalitarian systems. We've been down that road with Stalin and Mao.
What an extremely fitting username!
Best video on this channel
George Orwell. 1984.If there was hope, it must lie in the proles.
This interview is insanely good holy shit 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯.. I wish I could afford her book!
I'm going to check Audible
Could you not include the title of her book in the description?
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented.
define democracy
Governmental policy controlled by the general populace.
Democratic is people direct participation yet to avoid mob rule the public must choose representatives and to avoid them turning tyranns you need to constitute rules by which they are to perfom their duties give power to the people to forcefully remove them if need be. I believe that is what the United States of America are , a constitutional republic not Democracy if I am wrong I stand corrected.
The United States is a plutocracy, a dictatorship of the capitalist class. It is neither a democracy nor a republic, and never was.
This was seven years ago, before neoliberalism did destroy U$ democracy, RIP
this video was fantastic but the audio quality rly sucks
Wendy Brown's writings has had a huge influence on my academic career, started during my undergrad and beyond. After I read an excerpt from Undoing the Demos in a polisci class,.i ran out to buy the book.
That book set the trajectory for my academic career.
She is a genius
How did I know she was a collectivist as soon as she said UC Berkeley
Capitalism is collectivism. It's just a collectivism based on impersonal abstractions. That charge is silly.
if markets were totally unregulated there would be no issues. the problem is that the market users are totally regulated whereas the market makers are totally unregulated and worst still are totally shielded from the consequences of their actions. in short government governs the masses for the benefit of the unregulated few. put another way government is the muscle for the .01%
So it is ok if it is not actually working and is actually nonsense except for a few special interests ?
Are neocons & neoliberals basically the same?
Neocons will generally accept limitations on the market for the petrification of culture and tradition, though nowhere near to the same extent as paleo/trad-cons, and they support far more aggressive foreign policies than neoliberals, but they're both part of the same political project of destroying democracy and reducing the control most people have over their lives
We must expand democracy not only in government but also in our economy. Ending dictatorial relations is how we will move on to the next stage of human development.
100% we need democracy in our work places and housing. We should elect our landlords, as they do with council housing system in the UK. We should get to vote for representatives who sit in thr board. We should be unionised, and get to vote on whether we accept salaries or not (collective bargaining)
Ayo it's Rocky Dennis.
i believe only education and medicine should be government managed. i believe everything else including militias should be privatized and that the idea of monopoly on violence should be abolished.
I hope your trolling.
That just sounds like aristocracy with extra steps!
That's because in meaningful ways it still is and that was actually originally intentional. Not many know this but conservatism was invented with essentially the start of liberalism with the French Revolution and was invented as a means of economically sustaining aristocratic power under a shifting political landscape towards liberalism. Neoliberalism is similar in a sense as it also was a means of political regulation by the powerful for a similar purpose. The cyclic period that neoliberalism was attempting to reinstate was the political power of the capitalist class during the Gilded Age, which had diminished due to reform by political leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and FDR meaningfully - and throughout the world during the Great Depression as is was a time of left leaning reform.
Capitalism has always had contradictions here with its compatibility with democracy. In some meaningful ways the world has regulated to minimize these contradictions but in others the fundamental contradictions have only expanded, i.e the power wealth inequality has in and of itself towards influencing politics in undemocratic ways. Problems such as that example cannot be solved with capitalism as the dominant means of production. It is in this hierarchical divide in wealth that capitalism recreates aristocracy and feudalism as at any time the capitalist class in interest of preserving or enriching their will manipulate political democracies to their will as much as possible with their lopsided means of power.
Feudalism
Left-wing people’s often don’t have a boundary around who compromises the demos, so it remains an abstraction. Only a form of what some call right-wing populism can articulate a demos as an exclusive people based on location, race, ethnicity, customs, religion, and language (hard indentity).
The constitution of Liberty. Written by friedfrich Hayek.
Spirit in The Castle Drawbridge. Debt Monster.
does it mean that even ourmorals and democracy are based on what goes on in the democracy?
Undoing the demos
When you finally realize your government is a hostile occupying force.
To true.
You can't blame toe government for corporate greed. Yo can blame them for obeying to corporate greed.
@@Stefan556 the government is not evil. It is _captured_
@@Stefan556 That is the "representative problem" , a term they use in management which can also apply to politics. Political science after 1950 has borrowed such terms from the economic science.
The audio on this is horrible. please use some filtering
But democracy itself is a marketization of policies. The “consumer” - the individual voter - gets to choose the political representation most likely to favor her interests. If the speaker is criticising marketisation, she is in many ways criticising democracy itself while playing with words. I’d call this insincere and dubious from the get-go. It is indeed globalisation and neo-liberalism which has given a funnel escape for disadvantaged minorities everywhere. In a liberal system, there are no minorities, since the individual is free to choose her path.
you can choose between the 2 choices presented to you but you don't get to choose which 2 choices to be presented ( ie neoliberalism vs rainbow flavored neoliberalism )
But the people drive the markets. Thats more democratic then our government.
Rule by the market for the market.
the word "threatens" is palsy and misleading. It (Neo Liberalism Globalised Economics) 'own$' democracy. Will these high-horse institutional experts loose their jobs or grants if they spoke clearly and honestly?
Prpf Wendy delivers like a marriage guidance counsellor. 😟
This is what happened in the United States starting in the 1980's under the Reagan administration that adopted the economic principles of trickle down economics inline with the Milton Friedman economic theory that "an entity's greatest responsibility is to the satisfaction of the shareholders", which has led to the destruction of the working classes. Friedman's theory has been debunked from the start by a slew of highly recognized economist, an social scientist, and more importantly it has debunked itself through it's practical application since 1981 through today by the evidence of it's destruction to the working classes. Nothing substantial has trickled down to the whole of society. In fact wealth has become concentrated at the top of the United States wealth hierarchy, wages have stayed well below inflation in consumer good prices, cost of education and healthcare. The middle class has been in decline and there are more people living in poverty.
Along side of this the Reagan administration put into effect the Lewis Powell Memo's mandate for the corporate domination of United States democracy, and as we've witnessed government legislation and it's institutions have exceedingly dominated by corporate influences.to the point that legislation and law is not only influenced but wholely written by corporate lobbyist and institutions such as the US Chamber of Congress, and the Federalist Society. Effectively the United States of America could be referred to as the United Corporate States of America.
Bad audio.
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?