Hi. Interesting article. I'm not sure you guys quite describe the nefarious reality of neoliberalism. What you describe sure sounds awful in its own way but, if anything, where aspects of the Russia you detail come close to neoliberalism it's as victim not paradigm.
Neoliberalism in this article is used as "catch all bogeyman". RF system is not build with this ideology in mind. It is fundamentally a welfare state with build in kleptocracy. Major industries organised into state owned or state controlled by proxy corporations (not unlike 60-70s France and UK) with political class ripping the profits. There is no true large private property. That kleptocracy is partly responsible for business like attitudes to reduce costs in social services for bigger loot, not liberal ideas.
The issue I take with this article is when time comes how RF is going to rebuild free society and free economy if "neoliberalism" or "liberalism" is a bogeman. What is the alternative?
When I read the opening lines, I thought, this is exactly what has happened in South Africa. There are differences, but it's the triumph of neoliberalism.
The neoliberalism I learned about was nothing like it has been described. It was minimal government and minimal regulation. National defense and making sure rights are upheld in terms of government. This sounds like fascism on a diet.
The state does play a role in neoliberalism - creating an environment for big business to do their thing, look at examples from Honduras to USA, UK, India etc. Neoliberal capitalism is perfectly compatible with a large government and an authoritarian government. As the author noted it is the *spirit* of neoliberalism which you see everywhere, meaning everything is monetised.
Appreciate the reply - I’ll read up on it a bit more on the subject. As I always hear people call Friedman a neoliberal. But he very much wanted the state as small as possible and wanted deregulation whenever possible.
Hi. Interesting article. I'm not sure you guys quite describe the nefarious reality of neoliberalism. What you describe sure sounds awful in its own way but, if anything, where aspects of the Russia you detail come close to neoliberalism it's as victim not paradigm.
Neoliberalism in this article is used as "catch all bogeyman". RF system is not build with this ideology in mind. It is fundamentally a welfare state with build in kleptocracy. Major industries organised into state owned or state controlled by proxy corporations (not unlike 60-70s France and UK) with political class ripping the profits. There is no true large private property. That kleptocracy is partly responsible for business like attitudes to reduce costs in social services for bigger loot, not liberal ideas.
The issue I take with this article is when time comes how RF is going to rebuild free society and free economy if "neoliberalism" or "liberalism" is a bogeman. What is the alternative?
Divide et impera
When I read the opening lines, I thought, this is exactly what has happened in South Africa. There are differences, but it's the triumph of neoliberalism.
The neoliberalism I learned about was nothing like it has been described. It was minimal government and minimal regulation. National defense and making sure rights are upheld in terms of government. This sounds like fascism on a diet.
The state does play a role in neoliberalism - creating an environment for big business to do their thing, look at examples from Honduras to USA, UK, India etc. Neoliberal capitalism is perfectly compatible with a large government and an authoritarian government. As the author noted it is the *spirit* of neoliberalism which you see everywhere, meaning everything is monetised.
Appreciate the reply - I’ll read up on it a bit more on the subject. As I always hear people call Friedman a neoliberal. But he very much wanted the state as small as possible and wanted deregulation whenever possible.
Because Friedman is a classic liberal or neoliberal, which is the same thing. The article paints a caricature and it is ideologically biased.