Jump to content
Jason73

Neoliberalism Explanation

Recommended Posts

Hello, everyone.

 

I was thinking that I should learn the Neolib Critique. The Northwestern file on Openevidence looks extremely prepped out and good, so could anyone be so kind as to explain it to me?

 

I am hoping the explanation will be lengthy, but easy to understand. This year was my novice year, so I am no master by any standards.

 

Thank you so much in advance.

 

-Jason

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, neoliberalism is capitalism, plus who supports it. For instance, the WTO, ASEAN, etc. all are "supporters" of capitalism that involve the state. This will function similar to a Cap K (some say it's synonymous, I disagree). You should definitely throw neolib specific impacts on it, not just cap. Because if they break out the cap turns, you say that your argument is not cap bad, but neolib bad. Cap/Neolib is generally a good place to start for K debate. Cap just says that plan is capitalist, capitalism is bad, vote neg to do the alternative which solves for capitalism. Neolib is the same structure. It DEFINITELY links to the China topic - Economic engagement with another country in general is neoliberal.

 

I could be completely wrong though.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, neoliberalism is capitalism, plus who supports it. For instance, the WTO, ASEAN, etc. all are "supporters" of capitalism that involve the state. This will function similar to a Cap K (some say it's synonymous, I disagree). You should definitely throw neolib specific impacts on it, not just cap. Because if they break out the cap turns, you say that your argument is not cap bad, but neolib bad. Cap/Neolib is generally a good place to start for K debate. Cap just says that plan is capitalist, capitalism is bad, vote neg to do the alternative which solves for capitalism. Neolib is the same structure. It DEFINITELY links to the China topic - Economic engagement with another country in general is neoliberal.

 

I could be completely wrong though.

 

Thank you so much for the response. I appreciate all that you have said, but I was really hoping for more of a general explanation of what the critique says, what the external impact is, what the alt is, and how it all applies to surveillance (and China).

 

Nonetheless, thank you for the quick response.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the response. I appreciate all that you have said, but I was really hoping for more of a general explanation of what the critique says, what the external impact is, what the alt is, and how it all applies to surveillance (and China).

 

Nonetheless, thank you for the quick response.

Impacts and alternatives vary, in terms of impacts, you can expect things like warming, wars, resource shortages, class struggles, poverty, and root cause of other K impacts (ie, Neolib is the root cause of racism, etc.). In terms of alternatives, you can see everything from reject the aff, to violent revolution. In terms of surveillance, you can see things like "reducing state surveillance moves surveillance to the private sector", or something of the sort. In terms of China, I'm not sure yet, but my guess is, it'll probably be something along the lines of "Doing X with China (like trading) only benefits big businesses and spreads capitalism/neoliberalism to China".

 

EDIT: The attached document should get you started looking at what these arguments look like.

Neoliberalism K - JDI 2015.docx

Edited by NickDB8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impacts and alternatives vary, in terms of impacts, you can expect things like warming, wars, resource shortages, class struggles, poverty, and root cause of other K impacts (ie, Neolib is the root cause of racism, etc.). In terms of alternatives, you can see everything from reject the aff, to violent revolution. In terms of surveillance, you can see things like "reducing state surveillance moves surveillance to the private sector", or something of the sort. In terms of China, I'm not sure yet, but my guess is, it'll probably be something along the lines of "Doing X with China (like trading) only benefits big businesses and spreads capitalism/neoliberalism to China".

 

Again, thank you for the speedy response. How does the proliferation of neoliberalism cause the impacts of the Northwestern version of Neolib (social inequality and ecosystem collapse)?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, thank you for the speedy response. How does the proliferation of neoliberalism cause the impacts of the Northwestern version of Neolib (social inequality and ecosystem collapse)?

If you could post an exact card, I could better explain the warrants. But I assume it'd say something like "Neolib leads to social inequalities because of the proletarian struggle or some other revolutionary Marx stuff". Essentially, neoliberalism keeps the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor or getting poorer, while under the impression that everything is ok. You can get into some root cause arguments that would probably say something like "Wilderson's criticism of Blackness is rooted in slavery - a neoliberal construct". If you don't know what Wilderson (or any Antiblackness author) talks about, they say that all of america is antiblack, being built upon the work of the blacks and "blackened" individuals - but that's probably a discussion for another day.

 

In terms of ecosystem collapse - Imagine a world where the market and government were completely separate, no regulations. CO2 would skyrocket. Deforestation would be happening left and right. I remember hearing about a paper company in Africa dumping bleach (because paper isn't naturally white) into a local river. Just think of the general industrial stuff you hear about destroying the environment. Elephants being hunted for ivory, oceans being overfished to make a profit, the list of potential scenarios can go on.

 

 

EDIT: Not sure why I immediately thought of Wilderson - The most real world example of social inequality would probably be the male/female wage gap.

Edited by NickDB8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could post an exact card, I could better explain the warrants. But I assume it'd say something like "Neolib leads to social inequalities because of the proletarian struggle or some other revolutionary Marx stuff". Essentially, neoliberalism keeps the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor or getting poorer, while under the impression that everything is ok. You can get into some root cause arguments that would probably say something like "Wilderson's criticism of Blackness is rooted in slavery - a neoliberal construct". If you don't know what Wilderson (or any Antiblackness author) talks about, they say that all of america is antiblack, being built upon the work of the blacks and "blackened" individuals - but that's probably a discussion for another day.

 

In terms of ecosystem collapse - Imagine a world where the market and government were completely separate, no regulations. CO2 would skyrocket. Deforestation would be happening left and right. I remember hearing about a paper company in Africa dumping bleach (because paper isn't naturally white) into a local river. Just think of the general industrial stuff you hear about destroying the environment. Elephants being hunted for ivory, oceans being overfished to make a profit, the list of potential scenarios can go on.

 

 

EDIT: Not sure why I immediately thought of Wilderson - The most real world example of social inequality would probably be the male/female wage gap.

 

Thank you. Things are really starting to make sense now. Whenever I try to copy and paste the card, it doesn't show the highlighted parts, sorry. I don't know how to attach files, but here is the card anyways:

 

Neoliberalism guarantees extinction and social crisis – the judge has an intellectual obligation to evaluate the social relations that underpin the plan prior to evaluating the outcome of the policy – vote negative because the system the aff partakes in is fundamentally unethical

Molisa, Philosophy PhD, 14

(Pala Basil Mera, “Accounting For Apocalypse Re-Thinking Social Accounting Theory And Practice For Our Time Of Social Crises And Ecological Collapse,” http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3686/thesis.pdf?sequence=2)

Ecologically too, the situation is dire. Of the many measures of ecological well-being – topsoil loss, groundwater depletion, chemical contamination, increased toxicity levels in human beings, the number and size of “dead zones” in the Earth’s oceans, and the accelerating rate of species extinction and loss of biodiversity – the increasing evidence suggests that the developmental trajectory of the dominant economic culture necessarily causes the mass extermination of non-human communities, the systemic destruction and disruption of natural habitats, and could ultimately cause catastrophic destruction of the biosphere. The latest Global Environmental Outlook Report published by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the GEO-5 report, makes for sobering reading. As in earlier reports, the global trends portrayed are of continuing human population growth, expanding economic growth,6 and as a consequence severe forms of ecological degradation (UNEP, 2012; see also, UNEP, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2007). The ecological reality described is of ecological drawdown (deforestation, over-fishing, water extraction, etc.) (UNEP, 2012, pp. 72, 68, 84, 102-106, ); increasing toxicity of the environment through chemical and waste pollution, with severe harm caused to human and non-human communities alike (pp. 173- 179); systematic habitat destruction (pp. 8, 68-84) and climate change (33-60), which have decimated the number of species on Earth, threatening many with outright extinction (pp. 139-158). The most serious ecological threat on a global scale is climate disruption, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, other industrial activities, and land destruction (UNEP, 2012, p. 32). The GEO-5 report states that “[d]espite attempts to develop low-carbon economies in a number of countries, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to increase to levels likely to push global temperatures beyond the internationally agreed limit of 2° C above the pre-industrial average temperature” (UNEP, 2012, p. 32). Concentrations of atmospheric methane have more than doubled from preindustrial levels, reaching approximately 1826 ppb in 2012; the scientific consensus is that this increase is very likely due predominantly to agriculture and fossil fuel use (IPCC, 2007). Scientists warn that the Earth’s ecosystems are nearing catastrophic “tipping points” that will be marked by mass extinctions and unpredictable changes on a scale unseen since the glaciers retreated twelve thousand years ago (Pappas, 2012). Twenty-two eminent scientists warned recently in the journal, Nature, that humans are likely to have triggered a planetary-scale critical transition “with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience”, which means that “the biological resources we take for granted at present may be subject to rapid and unpredictable transformations within a few human generations” (Barnofsky et al., 2012). This means that human beings are in serious trouble, not only in the future, but right now. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide concentration was about 280 parts per million (ppm). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates concentrations could reach between 541 and 970 ppm by the year 2100. However, many climate scientists consider that levels should be kept below 350 ppm in order to avoid “irreversible catastrophic effects” (Hansen et al., 2008). “Catastrophic warming of the earth” would mean a planet that is too hot for life – that is, any life, and all life (Mrasek, 2008). We need to analyze the above information and ask the simple questions: what does it signify and where will it lead? In terms of the social crises of inequalities, the pattern of human development suggests clearly that although capitalism is capable of raising the economic productivity of many countries as well as international trade, it also produces social injustices on a global scale. The trajectory of capitalist economic development that people appear locked into is of perpetual growth that also produces significant human and social suffering. In terms of the ecological situation, the mounting evidence from reports, such as those published by UNEP, suggest that a full-scale ecocide will eventuate and that a global holocaust is in progress which is socially pathological and biocidal in its scope (UNEP, 2012; see also, UNEP, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2007). Assuming the trends do not change, the endpoint of this trajectory of perpetual economic growth, ecological degradation, systemic pollution, mass species extinction and runaway climate change, which human beings appear locked into, will be climate apocalypse and complete biotic collapse. Given the serious and life-threatening implications of these social and ecological crises outlined above, it would be reasonable to expect they should be central to academic concerns, particularly given the responsibilities of academics as intellectuals. As the people whom society subsidizes to carry out intellectual work,7 the primary task of academics is to carry out research that might enable people to deepen their understanding of how the world operates, ideally towards the goal of shaping a world that is more consistent with moral and political principles, and the collective self-interest (Jensen, 2013, p. 43). Given that most people’s stated philosophical and theological systems are rooted in concepts of justice, equality and the inherent dignity of all people (Jensen, 2007, p. 30), intellectuals have a particular responsibility to call attention to those social patterns of inequality which appear to be violations of such principles, and to call attention to the destructive ecological patterns that threaten individual and collective well-being. As a “critic and conscience of society,” 8 one task of intellectuals is to identify issues that people should all pay attention to, even when – indeed, especially whenpeople would rather ignore the issues (Jensen, 2013, p. 5). In view of this, intellectuals today should be focusing attention on the hard-to-face realities of an unjust and unsustainable world. Moreover, intellectuals in a democratic society, as its “critic and conscience”, should serve as sources of independent and critical information, analyses and varied opinions, in an endeavour to provide a meaningful role in the formation of public policy (Jensen, 2013c). In order to fulfil this obligation as “critic and conscience,” intellectuals need to be willing to critique not only particular people, organizations, and policies, but also the systems from which they emerge. In other words, intellectuals have to be willing to engage in radical critique. Generally, the term “radical” tends to suggest images of extremes, danger, violence, and people eager to tear things down (Jensen, 2007, p. 29). Radical, however, has a more classical meaning. It comes from the Latin –radix, meaning “root.” Radical critique in this light means critique or analysis that gets to the root of the problem. Given that the patterns of social inequality and ecocidal destruction outlined above are not the product of a vacuum, but instead are the product of social systems, radical critique simply means forms of social analysis, which are not only concerned about these social and ecological injustices but also trace them to the social systems from which they emerged, which would subject these very systems to searching critiques. Such searching critique is challenging because, generally, the dominant groups which tend to subsidize intellectuals (universities, think tanks, government, corporations) are the key agents of the social systems that produce inequalities and destroy ecosystems (Jensen, 2013, p. 12). The more intellectuals choose not only to identify patterns but also highlight the pathological systems from which they emerge, the greater the tension with whoever “pay the bills” (ibid.). However, this may arguably be unavoidable today, given that the realities of social inequality and ecological catastrophe show clearly that our social systems are already in crisis, are pathological, and in need of radical change.9 To adopt a radical position, in this light, is not to suggest that we simply need to abolish capitalism, or to imply that if we did so all our problems would be solved. For one thing, such an abstract argument has little operational purchase in terms of specifying how to go about struggling for change. For another thing, as this thesis will discuss, capitalism is not the only social system that we ought to be interrogating as an important systemic driver of social and ecological crises. Moreover, to adopt a radical position does not mean that we have any viable “answers” or “solutions” in terms of the alternative institutions, organizations and social systems that we could replace the existing ones with. There is currently no alternative to capitalism that appears to be viable, particularly given the historical loss of credibility that Marxism and socialism has suffered. As history has shown, some of the self-proclaimed socialist and communist regimes have had their own fair share of human rights abuses and environmental disasters, and the global left has thus far not been able to articulate alternatives that have managed to capture the allegiances of the mainstream population. Furthermore, given the depth, complexity, and scale of contemporary social and ecological crises, I am not sure if there are any viable alternatives or, for that matter, any guarantees that we can actually prevent and change the disastrous course of contemporary society. I certainly do not have any solutions. What I would argue, however, is that if we are to have any chance of not only ameliorating but also substantively addressing these social and ecological problems, before we can talk about alternatives or potential “solutions”, we first need to develop a clear understanding of the problems. And, as argued above, this involves, amongst other things, exploring why and how the existing social systems under which we live are producing the patterns of social inequality and ecological unsustainability that make up our realities today.10 To adopt a radical stance, in this light, is simply to insist that we have an obligation to honestly confront our social and ecological predicament and to ask difficult questions about the role that existing social systems might be playing in producing and exacerbating them. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that little rant I had about ecological destruction is what's happening here. It mentions social inequality very little though, so that may be something you have to do a lot of analysis on.

 

Not quite sure what alt you're reading, but be on the lookout for this:

 

"There is currently no alternative to capitalism that appears to be viable, particularly given the historical loss of credibility that Marxism and socialism has suffered. As history has shown, some of the self-proclaimed socialist and communist regimes have had their own fair share of human rights abuses and environmental disasters, and the global left has thus far not been able to articulate alternatives that have managed to capture the allegiances of the mainstream population. Furthermore, given the depth, complexity, and scale of contemporary social and ecological crises, I am not sure if there are any viable alternatives or, for that matter, any guarantees that we can actually prevent and change the disastrous course of contemporary society. I certainly do not have any solutions. "

 

Major solvency deficit to your alternative -

1. No viable alternative - Means capitalism exists because it's the best we have

2. Your K impacts (social inequality/ecocide) are inevitable in socialist/communist regimes

3. Even if socialism/communism works, it's so ingrained into society, we may not be able to shift out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most authors just use 'neoliberalism' as a perjorative for capitalist-like things they don't like.

 

Actual neoliberalism originates between the world wars in the 20th century, at the Walter Lippman Colloquium.  A group of economists decided that the classic liberal ideas had failed (derided by those who were still classic liberals), and that they needed a new liberal economic policy.  Whether or not Keynes was a neoliberal, the newly-minted neoliberal's conclusions were decidedly Keynsian.

 

Foucault nails it on his definition of neoliberalism in The Birth of Biopolitics.  It is not laissez-faire capitalism.  Rather, neoliberalism demands continuous state intervention.  Neoliberals believe markets are flawed, and that the state can fix those flaws through regulation, monetary policy, and other manipulations of the markets.  As such, neoliberalism is profoundly biopolitical.  

 

Neoliberalism has also been critiqued from the classic liberal position.  Ludwig von Mises famously declared the neoliberals were "socialists" at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting.  He also argued (In Economic Freedom and Interventionism) that this kind of invasive government intervention ended up nationalizing markets without ever nationalizing businesses.  Regulations stripped the markets of their ability to communicate information to businesses from consumers.  Instead, the signal became increasingly from the regulations themselves, which made businesses responsive to government demands and not consumers.  This disempowers consumers and causes misallocation of resources.

 

Through the 1960s there were still economists and politicians who openly identified as neoliberal under market-interventionist policy ideas.  By the 80s, no one identified as neoliberal and it had become a perjorative used by socialists to attack anything more capitalist than they were. (ie, pretty much everyone).  

 

Despite that, there have been a lot of neoliberal world leaders and government policies since the 60s.  For example, Obamacare is a prototypical neoliberal program - it coopts and regulates markets while claiming to 'fix' them, yet the reality is that consumers can't keep the plans and doctors they like, and cannot communicate that dislike to insurance companies in the only way corporations listen - through their spending.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most authors just use 'neoliberalism' as a perjorative for capitalist-like things they don't like.

 

Actual neoliberalism originates between the world wars in the 20th century, at the Walter Lippman Colloquium.  A group of economists decided that the classic liberal ideas had failed (derided by those who were still classic liberals), and that they needed a new liberal economic policy.  Whether or not Keynes was a neoliberal, the newly-minted neoliberal's conclusions were decidedly Keynsian.

 

Foucault nails it on his definition of neoliberalism in The Birth of Biopolitics.  It is not laissez-faire capitalism.  Rather, neoliberalism demands continuous state intervention.  Neoliberals believe markets are flawed, and that the state can fix those flaws through regulation, monetary policy, and other manipulations of the markets.  As such, neoliberalism is profoundly biopolitical.  

 

Neoliberalism has also been critiqued from the classic liberal position.  Ludwig von Mises famously declared the neoliberals were "socialists" at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting.  He also argued (In Economic Freedom and Interventionism) that this kind of invasive government intervention ended up nationalizing markets without ever nationalizing businesses.  Regulations stripped the markets of their ability to communicate information to businesses from consumers.  Instead, the signal became increasingly from the regulations themselves, which made businesses responsive to government demands and not consumers.  This disempowers consumers and causes misallocation of resources.

 

Through the 1960s there were still economists and politicians who openly identified as neoliberal under market-interventionist policy ideas.  By the 80s, no one identified as neoliberal and it had become a perjorative used by socialists to attack anything more capitalist than they were. (ie, pretty much everyone).  

 

Despite that, there have been a lot of neoliberal world leaders and government policies since the 60s.  For example, Obamacare is a prototypical neoliberal program - it coopts and regulates markets while claiming to 'fix' them, yet the reality is that consumers can't keep the plans and doctors they like, and cannot communicate that dislike to insurance companies in the only way corporations listen - through their spending.

And what this guy said - He explained the thesis better than I.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most authors just use 'neoliberalism' as a perjorative for capitalist-like things they don't like.

 

Actual neoliberalism originates between the world wars in the 20th century, at the Walter Lippman Colloquium.  A group of economists decided that the classic liberal ideas had failed (derided by those who were still classic liberals), and that they needed a new liberal economic policy.  Whether or not Keynes was a neoliberal, the newly-minted neoliberal's conclusions were decidedly Keynsian.

 

Foucault nails it on his definition of neoliberalism in The Birth of Biopolitics.  It is not laissez-faire capitalism.  Rather, neoliberalism demands continuous state intervention.  Neoliberals believe markets are flawed, and that the state can fix those flaws through regulation, monetary policy, and other manipulations of the markets.  As such, neoliberalism is profoundly biopolitical.  

 

Neoliberalism has also been critiqued from the classic liberal position.  Ludwig von Mises famously declared the neoliberals were "socialists" at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting.  He also argued (In Economic Freedom and Interventionism) that this kind of invasive government intervention ended up nationalizing markets without ever nationalizing businesses.  Regulations stripped the markets of their ability to communicate information to businesses from consumers.  Instead, the signal became increasingly from the regulations themselves, which made businesses responsive to government demands and not consumers.  This disempowers consumers and causes misallocation of resources.

 

Through the 1960s there were still economists and politicians who openly identified as neoliberal under market-interventionist policy ideas.  By the 80s, no one identified as neoliberal and it had become a perjorative used by socialists to attack anything more capitalist than they were. (ie, pretty much everyone).  

 

Despite that, there have been a lot of neoliberal world leaders and government policies since the 60s.  For example, Obamacare is a prototypical neoliberal program - it coopts and regulates markets while claiming to 'fix' them, yet the reality is that consumers can't keep the plans and doctors they like, and cannot communicate that dislike to insurance companies in the only way corporations listen - through their spending.

 

And what this guy said - He explained the thesis better than I.

 

Thank you both for the explanations. I truly appreciate it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for the explanations. I truly appreciate it.

No problem. If you have any questions, you know where to find me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although you should note that in debate, "neoliberalism" usually means unregulated capitalism, or extreme capitalism. Whether or not this definition is correct, pretty much every neolib K I've seen assumes this. 

 

For example, the very first card in the JDI file linked above:

***Note that this author is an English professor, and not an economics professor. Most of the "misuse" of the term according to what Squirreloid has provided arises out of philosophy (pomo/post structuralists especially) and generally non-economic people

 

"Their celebration of an “open Internet” and the “creative economy” reproduces the neoliberal entrepreneurial subject "

"To begin with, it is evident that creative-economy discourse was the means by which a more systemic program privileging private-sector modalities and economic ends was made relevant to culture and the arts"

"is friendly to private enterprise and wary of public subsidy, and friendly to a flexibly self-sufficient and self-managing workforce and hostile to collective politics"

"I should be, above all, committed to remaining free— or, as Matt Stahl would have, bereft—of actual state support.38¶ The continuation of these processes after New Labour suggests their basis in a broader neoliberal politics"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easiest way I've learned to understand new philosophy (which this is kinda borderline philosophy) is to read the literature behind it! Find a few authors that have written specific books or articles and read through it a couple times, It will clear things up since most of the time cards have tags that aren't very well explained by the text.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses!

 

Another question:

 

How does any policy affirmative link to Neolib if they are curtailing surveillance?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses!

 

Another question:

 

How does any policy affirmative link to Neolib if they are curtailing surveillance?

 

It doesn't really.  

 

But all those authors who use neoliberalism as a perjorative for things they don't like will use the term to describe just about anything.  Giroux is the primary culprit on surveillance policies.  (The argument, if it can be called that, is that curtailing only some surveillance otherwise justifies the surveillance state.  That's pretty much a link of omission - 'they didn't curtail all surveillance' - and it has nothing to do with actual neoliberalism.  But like i note, most modern authors who use the term are just using it as a perjorative.  Snarkosaurus is also on point here.)

 

I recommend challenging people in cx to define neoliberalism, and to force them to be very explicit about how what plan is doing causes neoliberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really.  

 

But all those authors who use neoliberalism as a perjorative for things they don't like will use the term to describe just about anything.  Giroux is the primary culprit on surveillance policies.  (The argument, if it can be called that, is that curtailing only some surveillance otherwise justifies the surveillance state.  That's pretty much a link of omission - 'they didn't curtail all surveillance' - and it has nothing to do with actual neoliberalism.  But like i note, most modern authors who use the term are just using it as a perjorative.  Snarkosaurus is also on point here.)

 

I recommend challenging people in cx to define neoliberalism, and to force them to be very explicit about how what plan is doing causes neoliberalism.

 

So basically it is something like: "They are ignoring the root cause of the problem, so they are perpetuating it"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the way I see it, Neolib is based off of individualism. So by curtailing surveillance, you are inherently perpetuating neoliberalism. So once you become more individual, you start acting as a self government and that's where you would hypothetically lash out to gain rescources etc.. So the argument is pretty much, yo people of the US, work together and with your government as a unit, instead of all, individuals, competing economically.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the way I see it, Neolib is based off of individualism. So by curtailing surveillance, you are inherently perpetuating neoliberalism. So once you become more individual, you start acting as a self government and that's where you would hypothetically lash out to gain rescources etc.. So the argument is pretty much, yo people of the US, work together and with your government as a unit, instead of all, individuals, competing economically.

 

Of course, this actually is a lot closer to the thesis of a Rights Malthus K than a Neolib K.

 

For surveillance cases (though I wouldn't focus too heavily on them, because the topic's over and neolib's going to be an infinitely better K next year), the strongest Neolib Ks link to policy Affs that claim economic advantages off of curtailing surveillance rather than civil liberties/rights advantages. Curtailing mass NSA surveillance because it invades privacy and discriminates against disfavored minorities is not neoliberal. Curtailing mass NSA surveillance because the government needs to boost the cloud computing industry is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the way I see it, Neolib is based off of individualism. So by curtailing surveillance, you are inherently perpetuating neoliberalism. So once you become more individual, you start acting as a self government and that's where you would hypothetically lash out to gain rescources etc.. So the argument is pretty much, yo people of the US, work together and with your government as a unit, instead of all, individuals, competing economically.

 

Except neoliberalism has nothing to do with individualism.  It's an economic theory that demands constant government intervention to perfect markets.  That's not individualist at all.

 

Edgehopper's distinction above is definitely on point - for there to be a real link to neoliberalism, the curtailment of surveillance has to be justified in terms of market regulation.  (The real link in his example has nothing to do with surveillance, but rather on the presumption that government should be choosing winners in the market at all - ie, the government has no business doing anything for the purpose of boosting cloud computing).

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the root cause? How is capitalism the root cause of, say, terrorism?

 

That's a marxism argument.  In the marxist view, economic class is the cause of everything in some way.  (If it wasn't caused by capitalism, it would be caused by some other economic structuring in which there were different classes).  The Soviet Union (for example) continued to blame the bourgeoisie for problems long after there was no real bourgeoisie to blame.  When class explains everything, you always look for an explanation in terms of class.  (When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

 

(It's not so much that capitalism causes terrorism as the disparity in class outcomes produced by capitalism cause terrorism in the Marxist view).

 

This argument is problematic, because it requires us to ignore what terrorists actually claim as their motivations.  In the Marxist view, no one can possibly have religious convictions they're willing to die for.  Marxism accepts only one kind of motivation, and tries to fit everything into that box whether it makes any sense or not.  

 

(It is in this approach to explanation that Popper criticizes Marxism - it's not falsifiable, because Marxists will recognize no failure of their approach to explanations.  They'll just concoct ad hoc rationalizations to support class as the only culprit for any problem, because the belief that all problems are class-based is fundamental.  They simply won't consider any other explanation as valid.  Their conceptual worldview can't encompass any other.  Imagine a physicist who thinks all physics can only be explained in terms of gravity, and rejects all other explanations, even if they better explain the facts, because he's got a pre-commitment to only gravity.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the root cause? How is capitalism the root cause of, say, terrorism?

 

The capitalism machine demands resources to consume the most blatant example is oil, so the US used that demand to justify violent revolutions leading to oppressive governments which in turn breed freedom fighter (terrorists). Grossly oversimplified, but I'm on my phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the root cause? How is capitalism the root cause of, say, terrorism?

http://www.criticalsociology.org/editorials/files/37_4.pdf

This says that neoliberalism causes middle eastern instability and violent revolt, perhaps something that could be considered terrorism. Probably not the best article, though. But really, cap/neolib links to everything, and you can make a lot of, as Squirelloid says, Marxist root cause claims.

 

 

What Harper said, too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a marxism argument.  In the marxist view, economic class is the cause of everything in some way.  (If it wasn't caused by capitalism, it would be caused by some other economic structuring in which there were different classes).  The Soviet Union (for example) continued to blame the bourgeoisie for problems long after there was no real bourgeoisie to blame.  When class explains everything, you always look for an explanation in terms of class.  (When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

 

(It's not so much that capitalism causes terrorism as the disparity in class outcomes produced by capitalism cause terrorism in the Marxist view).

 

This argument is problematic, because it requires us to ignore what terrorists actually claim as their motivations.  In the Marxist view, no one can possibly have religious convictions they're willing to die for.  Marxism accepts only one kind of motivation, and tries to fit everything into that box whether it makes any sense or not.  

 

(It is in this approach to explanation that Popper criticizes Marxism - it's not falsifiable, because Marxists will recognize no failure of their approach to explanations.  They'll just concoct ad hoc rationalizations to support class as the only culprit for any problem, because the belief that all problems are class-based is fundamental.  They simply won't consider any other explanation as valid.  Their conceptual worldview can't encompass any other.  Imagine a physicist who thinks all physics can only be explained in terms of gravity, and rejects all other explanations, even if they better explain the facts, because he's got a pre-commitment to only gravity.)

 

The capitalism machine demands resources to consume the most blatant example is oil, so the US used that demand to justify violent revolutions leading to oppressive governments which in turn breed freedom fighter (terrorists). Grossly oversimplified, but I'm on my phone.

 

http://www.criticalsociology.org/editorials/files/37_4.pdf

This says that neoliberalism causes middle eastern instability and violent revolt, perhaps something that could be considered terrorism. Probably not the best article, though. But really, cap/neolib links to everything, and you can make a lot of, as Squirelloid says, Marxist root cause claims.

 

 

What Harper said, too

 

Thank you all for the responses. I appreciate it greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...