Neoliberalisms

Ideoloģijas un ar tām saistītās lietas
Atbildēt uz ziņu
tas_pats
100+ Prot rakstīt
Ziņas: 418
Pievienojies: Otrd Apr 10, 2018 12:47 am

Neoliberalisms

Ziņa tas_pats » Trešd Aug 08, 2018 10:31 pm


youtu.be/ZMMJ9HqzRcE

Neoliberalism, warns Professor Wendy Brown, has created a form of reasoning in which human beings are reduced to their economic value and activity, and in which all fields of human activity are treated as markets and institutions, including the state, are increasingly run as if they were corporations. This logic is even applied to activities with no connection to wealth creation, such as education, dating, or physical exercise, which are increasingly governed according to market rules. People are treated in this schema, as units of human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future value.


00:00
I'm here today with professor Wendy
00:01
brown professor of political science at
00:03
University of California Berkeley we're
00:05
here to discuss her book undoing the
00:08
demos neoliberalism stealth revolution
00:10
published in March of 2015 by zone books
00:14
Wendy thanks for joining us it's a
00:15
pleasure
00:16
neoliberalism's stealth revolution what
00:19
does that mean what I wanted to do in
00:22
this book was take us a little past the
00:25
usual understandings of neoliberalism
00:27
and I'll say just a word about that
00:30
conventionally we understand it as a
00:32
reaction to Keynesianism
00:34
a reaction to the welfare state
00:36
promulgation of free markets an
00:38
insistence that markets left alone and
00:42
uncovered by states not intervened in by
00:45
governments and produced everywhere and
00:49
for everything would just make the best
00:50
possible world for all and certainly
00:52
there is that dimension to neoliberalism
00:54
so that you're saying that in that
00:57
scheme with anything mistake does is
01:00
inefficient or detracts from the
01:02
potential well bigger somos Neil opposed
01:05
will acknowledge that the state should
01:07
be in charge of defense provide basic
01:12
security secur rights now the content of
01:16
those things is another question
01:19
mostly liberals will argue that even
01:21
there there's room for markets that the
01:23
state ought to do those things by
01:26
producing markets in them but still
01:28
needs to be in charge of them but close
01:31
that bracket for the moment for the most
01:34
part neoliberalism is understood as
01:37
something that is about letting markets
01:40
have their way and keeping the state out
01:42
of the picture except for defense for
01:46
securing rights and for providing
01:48
national security but I wanted to take
01:51
the problem of neoliberalism a little
01:54
further and explore something that it's
01:56
done to political life to social life
01:58
and to the human being and that's where
02:00
the stealth revolution comes in what
02:04
many neo liberals especially those
02:07
writing and thinking and arguing on
02:10
behalf of neoliberalism in the 40s
02:12
jeez the 60s argued for wasn't just free
02:16
markets but the expansion of markets
02:20
understood as competition to every
02:23
feature of life including democracy
02:26
including human social life including
02:31
education social services and so forth
02:34
so the idea wasn't just let free market
02:38
up that way but produce everything in
02:42
the image of a market and that's where
02:44
the stealth revolution comes in because
02:46
that's where the transformation of the
02:49
human being and the transformation of
02:51
democracy itself begins to unfold and I
02:55
think those are the things we probably
02:56
want to talk about until the title
02:58
undoing the demos yes is what the still
03:01
throw evolution right yes so above all
03:04
what I'm concerned with in this book is
03:07
the way that turning democracy itself
03:11
into a marketplace converting the terms
03:14
of democracy the basic understanding of
03:17
democracy into a marketplace literally
03:20
undoes democracy and what I mean there
03:23
is that if democracy is understood in
03:26
its most basic way as rule of the people
03:31
rule of the demos
03:32
that's the ancient Greek idea Emo's
03:35
Katya the people rule once you take
03:39
democracy and make it into a marketplace
03:42
you get rid of some pretty fundamental
03:45
principles of democracy and these
03:48
include making equality of first
03:52
principle sharing political power
03:54
equally and having the people themselves
03:58
decide what to value and decide what a
04:01
particular polity ought to do ruling
04:04
themselves and the reason you get rid of
04:07
those when you convert democracy into a
04:09
marketplace is that marketplaces aren't
04:11
supposed to have people ruling they're
04:14
just supposed to have everyone pursuing
04:15
their own interest and they aren't
04:17
supposed to have equality they're
04:18
supposed to have
04:20
the naturalness of inequality that comes
04:23
with competition so some of the most
04:27
basic features of democracy get undone
04:30
by marketizing it and that's what this
04:33
book is concerned with know in reading
04:36
this book the other dimensions I think
04:39
it's very sophisticated and important
04:42
that you bring out is that you are not
04:45
just romanticizing democracy as an
04:49
alternative to this system you deal with
04:52
the tensions of how expertise and
04:55
representation and the structure of
04:57
governments affects the well-being of
05:00
people and the notion that Bukka pure
05:05
representative democracy as an ideal has
05:08
certain attractions like instead of
05:10
sharing the power making sure everyone's
05:12
hurt but there are tensions within that
05:15
and there are people like the order
05:16
liberals who would like to have a
05:19
hierarchy of more expert people choosing
05:24
what to do for the well-being of society
05:26
right but that has its vulnerabilities
05:32
of here
05:33
yes democracy is always an unrealized
05:36
dream and it's not as if we once upon a
05:40
time had it and then neoliberalism and
05:43
in it there's always been in modern
05:46
societies attention between capitalism
05:50
and democracy between the inequalities
05:53
that capitalist societies generate and
05:57
the ideal of including all sharing power
06:01
among all having an egalitarian
06:04
political order but the idea was
06:08
sustained by an understanding democracy
06:13
and capitalism as something other than
06:16
identical understanding democracy is
06:18
something that societies had to try to
06:21
aspire to and carve out a space for and
06:24
markets as something that we're
06:26
appropriately confined to a
06:29
Alex here they're a tool except
06:32
facilitate the will be right quarter but
06:35
what's changed and even the classical
06:37
political economist Adam Smith Adam
06:39
Ferguson and others never argued that
06:43
democracy itself or the state itself
06:45
should be economized
06:47
should be turned into a market they
06:49
simply argued that where there were
06:51
markets lazy Fair should be appropriate
06:55
but they never argued that everything
06:56
should be marketized so democracy has
06:59
always been in tension with markets but
07:02
it least was cultivated by honoring its
07:07
basic principles and attempting to
07:09
expand those to include more people's
07:12
for example those historically
07:14
disenfranchised African Americans in the
07:17
u.s. women other people's who were
07:21
excluded and also expand rights and
07:24
expand possibilities for opportunity and
07:27
expand possibilities for participation
07:29
as citizens what's changed what
07:32
neoliberalism is done by economizing
07:35
democracy is say there's no special
07:38
space for democracy anymore there's just
07:41
markets everywhere and everything should
07:43
be understood on a market model it used
07:46
to be said that capitalism derives its
07:50
world legitimacy from being governed by
07:53
democracy ANCA but now the buying and
07:58
selling of the rules of the game or the
07:59
enforcement of the rules tear us apart
08:02
that legitimacy exactly and what's
08:05
happened in response to that at some
08:07
times and in some places is that people
08:10
question whether we need democracy at
08:12
all exactly um people point to in
08:14
Chinese authoritarian government as an
08:16
example of something that works that
08:19
delivers the service others say
08:23
democracy doesn't work because it
08:25
requires expertise sophistication and a
08:28
hierarchy and then people can't
08:31
obviously collectively rise up to that
08:34
whether it's because of emotional
08:36
contagion or whether it's because of
08:38
lack of education something we should
08:40
talk about here because you can't
08:43
boy education and depend on democracy so
08:46
let's hold that for just a second and
08:48
but first talk about the what you just
08:50
mentioned and I really think useful
08:52
provocation which is once democracy
08:55
starts to be challenged by the
08:57
ubiquitousness of markets and markets
08:59
understood as the best way to organize
09:02
everything once once that challenge
09:05
happens the capacity of people to argue
09:09
for democratic will democratic governing
09:13
becomes really weakened markets become
09:16
the solution to everything and when that
09:18
happens you get a cycle the one you've
09:20
just described which is markets do what
09:23
they will even if they're producing
09:25
greater inequalities even if they're
09:27
producing tremendous volatility and
09:29
instability even if they're crashing
09:31
certain economies all together certain
09:34
nations producing the situation that we
09:36
have today in Porto Rico or in Greece or
09:38
elsewhere markets are still understood
09:41
to be the best way of governing and then
09:45
you get the problem of democracy itself
09:49
being essentially what you're describing
09:51
d legitimized as a response or a retort
09:55
or a solution to the inequalities or mal
09:59
distributions or utter disasters that
10:02
markets sometimes generate and this
10:05
raids are spiral because when the
10:07
government doesn't perform well the
10:11
lobbies to dismantle the government
10:13
reduce their funding reduce their
10:16
training and enters the quality of
10:18
talent that they can aspire to writing
10:19
in senior position so then you get that
10:22
tab as that I always yes go ahead that
10:24
disintegrates right and government camp
10:26
function that therefore validates
10:28
specific right so it looks like a it
10:31
looks like a bad form of organizing
10:35
society and increasingly what you get
10:39
are on the one hand the idea that
10:44
markets themselves should govern or that
10:47
the philanthropic desires of and I'm
10:51
saying this you know with with Silicon
10:54
Valley 20 miles away from us as we speak
10:56
the
10:57
and profit desires of the head of
10:59
Microsoft or the head of Facebook or
11:01
whatever else ought to be making the
11:03
major political moves and decisions for
11:07
our society so increasingly the
11:10
understanding of how we should organize
11:13
ourselves is either let the markets rule
11:16
or let the ritual and let the rich make
11:19
decisions about how do we fix education
11:22
or how do we respond to poverty in North
11:24
Africa or how do we respond to
11:29
disintegration of an inner city or
11:32
something like that and it becomes up to
11:34
the Zuckerberg and the Gates and so
11:38
forth who are understood as not only
11:41
experts at what they do
11:43
but now become essentially the new
11:45
rulers
11:46
that's the non nefarious side the
11:49
nefarious side is the one you just
11:50
described where those who are able to
11:56
essentially by legislation by making
12:00
tremendous contributions to candidates
12:06
for office and then making those
12:10
contributions based on a quid pro quo a
12:13
tacit quid pro quo if if I get you
12:16
elected then you will make sure that
12:18
you're resilient policy there
12:19
pre-selling policy and it's just become
12:22
you know most people know this is the
12:24
case and as you say people kind of as a
12:26
result become very cynical but I think
12:29
also what we have now is a kind of deep
12:31
confusion and even despair about what
12:35
else could possibly run our world use so
12:39
when you're combining that with the fact
12:42
that there are now picking up an earlier
12:45
point you mentioned those who believe
12:48
that democracy is just a bad way to run
12:52
an economy and a bad way to run the
12:54
globe I think this touches on some of
12:56
what's going on with the European Union
12:58
crisis and other things you get the
13:01
conviction that it really at this point
13:04
ought to simply be a matter of experts
13:07
who have the authority to decide
13:10
which policies should be pursued which
13:13
policies should be avoided
13:14
where austerity ought to be imposed
13:16
where it ought to be where certain kinds
13:20
of arrangements with between financial
13:23
institutions and states and public
13:26
services ought to be organized and
13:28
increasingly we have a belief on the one
13:31
hand that that ought to be organized by
13:33
experts and a despair on the other that
13:38
governments are hopeless markets are out
13:41
of control the world is too complex and
13:44
too vast and it's either doomsday or
13:48
I'll just go shopping what you said in
13:51
the book is that our belief there's like
13:54
a decline in the belief in the modern
13:58
there's a decline in the belief that
14:01
human agency can be used to repair these
14:04
things and that it's that despondency
14:07
that along with the challenge of
14:10
creating an affirmative vision or
14:12
critiquing the neoliberal vision that
14:15
treant is all mistakes or moments so
14:17
important robbed that in internet
14:19
because I think that in many ways the
14:25
idea that we are in an age of
14:29
extraordinary technological innovation
14:31
and that technology holds the solution
14:34
to everything has almost produced a kind
14:38
of cover or a layer of denial that sits
14:43
atop what is a very deep despair about
14:47
being able to come together as a people
14:50
as a demos and decide how we should live
14:54
what our problems are how they should be
14:57
fixed and I think that despair ranges
15:00
across everything from what do we do
15:04
about global financial institutions to
15:07
what do we do about global warming that
15:10
sense that modernity brought us the idea
15:15
that human beings rather than nature
15:18
rather than gods and
15:21
rather than tradition human beings could
15:24
be in charge of their own lives their
15:27
own future and could exercise freedom in
15:30
coming together with others and deciding
15:34
individually how to live and that was
15:37
the promise of modernity if there was
15:39
one big promise of modernity modernity
15:41
it was that no longer did these things
15:44
have to be determined by forces of
15:47
nature or forces the two entities your
15:49
ritual sacrifice of the alignment of the
15:52
stars that reason deliberation and
15:55
democratic organization was the way that
15:59
modern human beings would take control
16:02
of their lives and exercise their
16:06
freedom to be creatures of mind and of
16:09
will who could do that and I think at
16:12
this point in history were actually
16:14
seeing that that hope that promise that
16:17
belief turn inside out and turn into a
16:21
kind of deep but often unavailing
16:27
that everything's out of control and
16:30
instilling the void that's out of
16:33
control yes there's faith in markets
16:36
there you go
16:37
yes what how deserving is that well I'm
16:42
afraid you and I probably agree that
16:44
that faith and market is is is not
16:49
founded that market certainly can do
16:53
certain things but faith and markets to
16:55
determine our future and to write
16:58
themselves and to govern us is is
17:01
inappropriate I also think there's some
17:04
quotidian things you can say about
17:06
markets things like you know what Thomas
17:08
Piketty underscored that I think many
17:11
economists knew but he just made it
17:14
really bold with his eight hundred page
17:17
tome by say look the thing about markets
17:21
when they're really left to themselves
17:22
as they do one where a simple thing they
17:25
generate capital accumulation at a much
17:28
greater rate than they
17:29
if growth and when that happens what you
17:32
get is increasing concentration of
17:35
wealth at the top increasing
17:38
impoverishment across society and a
17:40
fairly stagnant economy and when that
17:44
happens what you get in turn he argued
17:46
is basically a form of neo feudalism a
17:50
kind of stagnant economy with an Oleg
17:52
ARCIC class ruling over it and engaged
17:57
in rent extraction rather than
17:59
productive or growth based it's another
18:04
subject the question of growth but or
18:06
growth based economic development and
18:09
you pick these working as you know very
18:11
much inside the bounds of economics but
18:15
called out free markets as not doing
18:17
what economics basically says it's
18:21
supposed to do which is generate the
18:24
most productive successful growing
18:27
economy that possibly could he said no
18:29
it actually does the opposite left alone
18:31
this is the danger then the promise of
18:33
the ability to transition that it's as
18:37
if the drawbridge gets pulled up
18:38
examiner key exactly I mean what he
18:41
focuses on is the extent to which once
18:44
wealth gets concentrated like that law
18:47
in turn gets organized by that oligarchy
18:49
to make sure that it's not transmitted
18:52
anywhere except to their own future
18:54
generations and once that happens you've
18:57
put an end to equality of opportunity
18:59
you've you've basically secured a world
19:02
in which there's no social mobility at
19:06
all so you put an end to another promise
19:08
of majority which is that everyone gets
19:11
included in at least the prospect of
19:14
being able to develop who and what they
19:16
want to be even if we have uneven
19:18
starting lines even if it's not a
19:20
completely level playing field
19:22
what Piketty argues is once once you
19:25
have a truly free market world of that
19:27
sort you get an absolute doll and social
19:32
mobility it is pure boydle the French
19:35
sociologist once said the spirit in the
19:38
castle is in the drawbridge there you go
19:40
that's beautiful

tas_pats
100+ Prot rakstīt
Ziņas: 418
Pievienojies: Otrd Apr 10, 2018 12:47 am

Re: Neoliberalisms

Ziņa tas_pats » Cetd Aug 09, 2018 11:18 am

Es kaut kā netradicionāli esmu sācis ar video, kas paskaidro neoliberālismu, bet pieklājības dēļ būtu jāpauž zinātniski neitrāls viedoklis, kā wikipedia.
Neoliberālisms ir politiska ideoloģija, kas atbalsta ekonomisko liberālismu, brīvo tirdzniecību, tirgus deregulāciju un privatizāciju. Neoliberālisms radās 1930. gados, taču plaši izplatīts kļuva 1980. gados,[1] kad šādu politiku aktīvi piekopa Amerikas Savienoto Valstu prezidents Ronalds Reigans un Apvienotās Karalistes premjerministre Mārgarita Tečere.

Ekonomists Breds Delongs neoliberālismu, citkārt dēvētu par tečerismu vai reiganekonomiku, skaidro kā disciplīnu, kas atbalsta brīvo tirgu, minimālu valsts iejaukšanos ekonomiskajās attiecībās, kā arī īpašuma tiesības. Breds Delongs norāda uz diviem neoliberālisma pamatprincipiem, kas ir: ciešs ekonomiskais kontakts starp kapitālistiskajām (jeb attīstītajām) valstīm un jaunattīstības valstīm, kas ir labākais veids, kā paātrināt tehnoloģiju pārvietošanos. Tas ir galvenais priekšnoteikums, lai nabadzīgās valstis kļūtu pārtikušas; valstu valdībām kopumā trūkst spējas pārvaldīt lielus rūpnieciskus vai komerciālus uzņēmumus, tāpēc valsts pārvalde jāsamazina un tai jāpilda tikai paši būtiskākie uzdevumi — ienākumu pārdale, tiesību sistēmas pārvalde, sabiedrisko labumu nodrošināšana u. c. Pārējiem sektoriem jābūt privatizētiem.
https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliber%C4%81lisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Vēsturiski tieši neoliberalisms tika izmantots kā ierocis pret sabiedriskām uzņemējdarbība. Un principā neoliberālisms tiek uzskatīts par kapitālisma visplašāk izmantoto formu.

Atbildēt uz ziņu