How does historical materialism explain neoliberalism?
My understanding goes like this: >Imperialist slaveholding societies countered by barbarians and slave revolts create feudalism >Feudalism countered by mercantilism & colonialism create capitalism
Now the STANDARD ORTHODOX MARXIST thought goes: >Capitalism countered by socialism create communism But post-Marxists have disputed this, and presented (very convincingly): >Capitalism countered by socialism create social-democracy But then... >Social-democracy countered by ????? create neoliberalism What exactly goes into the blank space?
Or am I looking at this wrong? Is the "neoliberalism" the antithesis? So >Social-democracy countered by neolibreralism create ????? This does make a bit more sense...... but looking at the entire process, this seems to dispute the entire basis of historical materialism. It's the only instance of class struggle where the antithesis comes from the upper classes, and seems to lead to a regressive expansion of ownership.
So... uh... yeah what the fuck? explain yourselves, Marxists
>Capitalism countered by socialism create social-democracy this is stupid as hell. neoliberalism is """social-democracy""" which is really just capitalism with a human face
no it's not you stupid fucking imbecile, he obviously means the development of Keynesian welfare state into Neoliberalism with Tatcher and Reagan & others go back to posting on leftist subs on reddit you fucking underager
Logan Ortiz
>Keynes >socialism either brain-damage, retardation, or american education; no idea
Adrian Torres
Historical materialism is retarded and is only believed by people with an extremely Eurocentric view of history ironically.
Matthew Davis
>capitalism with a human face "capitalism" where the surplus value is being shared among the working classes through the state apparatus
Juan Collins
Who cares? It's a 19th century pseudo-science tool.
Do you also wonder how astrology will predict your love life?
Wyatt Hernandez
>Social democracy >Socialism Holy shit you're dumber than I imagined Go back to r*ddit, please
Evan Edwards
He’s right you’re a moron. Keynes never was even near socialism. He was actually very critical of Marx’s system himself :3
Noah Harris
Oh my fucking lord how fucking dumb do you have to be to conflate 40-70 Keynesian welfare state with the view of Keynes the man himself and with socialism? Jesus
Henry Fisher
Point taken, but I really don’t see how a welfare state is that much different from what Keynes would have wanted. I think Keynes himself advocated for a welfare state in his General Theory book by stipulating that what drives increased growth is consumption and investment. His whole economic system isn’t stable: it’s based on a never-ending increasing consumption of goods.
Henry Rivera
neoliberalism is a response to the rapidly declining rate of profit. To improve it you need to do one or more of three things: -increase the workforce (mass immigration and the opening up of the Chinese/third world workforce to western capitalist enterprises) -destruction of capital (imperialist wars and third world industrial sabotage) -reducing the rate of accumulation (focus on the financial industry and speculative assets over liquid reserves)
This is neoliberalism at its core. The cultural side of neoliberalism was built to make the public "accept" all of this.
Chase Gonzalez
Well you seem to just be throwing around words without actually referring to anything actually historical. What you call "neoliberalism" emerged as intellectually respectable as a response to the stagflation of the 1970s and the transformation of industry as a result of technological innovations such as the microprocessor. At the same time you have Nixon getting off the gold standard allowing financialization to detach itself from commodity constraints and rapid speed up of transactions on digital systems and China opening themselves up for foreign investment resulting in the transformation of global supply chains combined with just-in-time production methods. Old soviet style command economies tried importing some of these innovations from the capitalist world (détente) but their social systems couldn't adapt and this helped them explode quicker (of course there's a lot of weird deep politics behind the development of the eurodollar market, the 70s oil crises, Vatican bankers, P2 and the deep actors behind the 80s debt crises in mexico, turkey, poland, argentenia, etc)... "social democracy" (a European affair) self negated as well from the same transformations in global production and exchange methods. "Neoliberalism" wasn't just an elite conspiracy emerging from the Mont Pelerin Society like Naomi Klein claims it was but a real "solution" to transformations that were occurring and embraced by the masses. People really did want access to cheaper foreign made goods and access to more advanced financial markets. I'm not claiming it was "necessary" historically but it was one answer.
Jack Taylor
"Historical materialism" is just nonsense because Marx doesn't realize that spiritualism/occultism is a fundamental aspect of Hegel's dialectic that cannot be removed. There is no "materialist" interpretation of Hegel; Spirit is too important to his thought. Marx thought he could "perfect" Hegel, but in the end he was merely Hegel's puppet from beyond the grave. Marx essentially became Hegel's stooge and carried forth the Dialectic unwittingly.
>you seem to just be throwing around words without actually referring to anything actually historical pot calling the kettle black
Lucas Brooks
I suppose I should say that there is no CORRECT materialist interpretation of Hegel. Any attempt to fit Hegel into materialism ultimately contorts him.
Hudson Cook
Simple: "social-democracy" and "neoliberalism" are just different shades of capitalism.
Cooper Smith
surplus value is profit and profit is not redistributed, only taxes are
Noah Walker
>but I really don’t see how a welfare state is that much different from what Keynes would have wanted Because the actual thing, ie the 40-70 welfare state as it has been historically, is a different thing from a theoretization of it. One's the actual thing "as it has been", and that's what I'm talking about. read production of commodities by means of commodities for the love of God
For an average rate of profit to emerge redistribution has to occur otherwise different economic sectors would naturally all have different rates of profit which is illogical. If X amount invested in farming got a higher return than X invested in manufacturing then manufacturing would be pointless. Taxation is just another overhead expense of doing business only difference being you're dealing with a government monopoly.
Colton Gray
>surplus value is being shared among the working classes HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Easton Thompson
You are literally just taking knowledge of different historical events with no real meaning and putting it together to seem intelligent. shut the fuck up
Nolan Ward
A real crises manifested itself in the 1970s that effected the entire international order. Keynesian/"social democratic" policies couldn't generate the exchange-value to keep capitalism alive so they were abandoned. The new information technology probably was the most important change in the "base" that made "neoliberalism" the only realistic option.
Justin Martinez
your dialectic is WEAK!
Asher Reyes
this
Daniel Hill
>surplus value is being shared among the working classes Now that's fucking funny
Juan Fisher
Why? What's so funny? That's how I see socdem - capitalism, but where profits are being taxed and redistributed. In effect it's the surplus value workers are forced to produce being partially returned to them.
Lucas Perez
Read Malthus, neo-liberalism is just the return of classical liberalism by way of the Queen's Mont Pelerin society.
Jose White
>read production of commodities by means of commodities for the love of God
