Let’s see what the champions of white supremacy are up to today…
https://twitter.com/nation_pill/status/1083839998758191109?s=21
Interesting interview:
Those are active voice!
I’d be interested in your view of this article:
Gives a coherent definition of neoliberalism, it’s history, and criticisms of it from the left, as well as some possible solutions to the problems caused by neoliberalism going forward.
[ETA] It also strikes me that one of the big criticisms leveled at the critics of neo-liberalism is that it’s poorly defined, and I just don’t think that’s the case. People across the spectrum have defined it pretty well- from Friedman, Hayak, and Thatcher, to Foucault, David Harvey, Stuart Hall, and Wendy Brown. It has been used imprecisely at times, but ti has a definition, which he does an excellent job pinning down.
First WTF:
He sees neoliberalism as a “framework of political rationality”, which emerged in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, and was transported to France and the US.
…What did this person just say emerged in Germany in the 1930s and 40s?
But there’s one thing I know
Though I’m younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good?
Will it buy you forgiveness?
Do you think that it could?
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I’ll follow your casket
On a pale afternoon
I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand over your grave
'Til I’m sure that you’re dead
The ratio is vicious.
If it’s “free” but not accessible, it’s not free for everyone.
It seems like an oblique reference to Karl Polyani, who argued that the marketization of daily life opened up the space for the holocaust, as it aided the dehumanization process prior to the rise of the nazis.
In this context, “accessible” is not a disability reference. It’s just a neoliberal euphemism for “not free”.
Seems mostly sensible, although I’d quibble with the idea that liberalism and neoliberalism were ever really about competition. Privatised oligopoly is the more usual outcome.
Friedman’s bit about “the underlying current of opinion” makes me think of this: