Readers might like to compare the more journalistic (and entertaining, IMO) 2014 piece on 'San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference' from sadly defunct Pando, for example:
> At first glance it makes no sense to front a rabidly anti-gay candidate like McMorris Rodgers to sell the Kochs’ and the Paul family’s scrubland libertarianism to a Bay Area audience full of hip disruptors and “anarchist” practitioners of bohemia grooming fads.
> But that’s because what Silicon Valley folks think of when they hear the word “libertarianism” actually has very little connection to what the libertarian movement actually stands for, and has stood for since the 1970s.
...
1: https://web.archive.org/web/20141118174216/http://pando.com/...
The libertarianism the article speaks of at the end gave way to right-wing populism, while Silicon Valley moved into mixture of hard capitalism and social justice (dodging taxes and monopolizing while showing pride flags)
I think this utopian techno-libertarian is more like a relic from the 90s nowadays.
edit: on the other hand… it gave rise to bitcoin/cryptocurrency, which is like the culmination of both techno-utopianism and libertarianism. So, maybe you are right
Classical liberalism was a naturalistic belief in market supremacy, understood to be a colossal failure by the middle of the 20th century. It was associated with the Gilded Age, which spawned the so-called Progressive Era, the ideological camps that followed, and the catastrophe that was the world wars.
Neoliberalism is what the capitalist class have insisted is a reformed liberalism, invincible to the problems that classical liberalism motivated. It is a far more centralized, 'managed' market supremacy without the naturalistic perspective. Neoliberalism claims to acknowledge that markets are not natural and must be tightly managed by experts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employme...
In fact, his channel profile now simply says "English liberal."
Wikipedia begs to differ with all that...
Not really. It says that journalists describe him as “far right” which by current journalistic standards is a superset of classical liberalism.
Computers merely allow us to lie - and forget the lies - at light speed. This will eventually replace all other cultures - neoliberalism especially ...
A river is made up of different water molecules every day, yet it's the same river over millennia.
In the same way, countries (and other abstract entities such as companies) exist in the dynamics of human interactions.
So yes, humans must perpetuate the concept by re-telling it, but somewhat paradoxically it's not a lie as long as they do so.
Heraclitus would like a word with you.
Rerun the human race 1000 times. Do you think Russia will show up more than a handful of times?
It only takes a few days in the bush, out back, to realize just how futile it is to consider any one culture superior to another...
the ruthless capitalist approach led to the development of communism as a reaction. but communism had its own faults and, to many, egregious failures as well.
Mussolini -- who was literally the editor of a socialist newspaper -- grew disillusioned with socialism, and proposed a 3rd way by mixing chunks of capitalism that he liked with the chunks of communism that he liked, as well as a good healthy dose of machismo and nationalism to paper over the gaps.
similar approaches were taken in Germany, and there was a Nationalist (right wing) Workers Party (left wing) called the NSDAP that tried to do the same thing. Instead of pure corporatism they made it ethnic, but had vaguely similar approaches to corporations and the state, which often meant whatever they felt like at the time.
It’s amazing to me people agree on definitions for anything, given people have been having the same basic abstract arguments for what makes thing A thing A and distinct from thing B for thousands of years.
You can open a map and find that a river has a name, that's true no matter your stance on what it "really is".
That'd be equivalent to grow America's M2 ($20 trillion) by 12 trillion in just 4 years. 2019 to 2022 wasn't even that intense and, well, we can see how ugly things have gotten.
I’m not an economist so I’m speaking from a position of ignorance here. But I thought the US was on gold standard during this time period.
How was the Fed able to increase money supply by such a large % without e.g. the country mining a lot more gold?
I tried a cursory search but was unable to find any answers.
The only way to stop politicians meddling with money is to denationalize it and eliminate legal tender laws.
I don't think the alt right can be said to have "claimed" it as much as the left is rejecting it and there is no other home in a 2-faction classification.
[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/17/statue-removed-fran... Note the name Voltaire
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Memorials_and... Note the name Jefferson.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Notable_t... Note the names Jefferson, Voltaire.
Prime example for me were those talks about rail worker strikes. They were completely disallowed from happening. I understand the reasons, but despite not being any sort of leftist, I find it quite unfair that rail workers can't strike.
Police, teachers, actors and writers, etc. all have that right. Rail workers? Nope. I don't know what to call the political economic system we live under, but it seems to just be that our leaders make it up as we go along and allow whatever happens to be convenient and not blatantly illegal. Nobody gives a shit about rail workers, so legally blocking a strike by them isn't going to cause any problems.
It isn't that the meaning of the word is changing. There is a detectable (indeed, proud and vocal) anti-liberalism stripe in the people who most loudly disagree with Carl Benjamin. And a lot of his positions are classical liberal positions. The classical liberals wouldn't have been very impressed by the things he criticises (or him, one suspects, but ones character is different from ones political persuasion).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory
Cf. for example Hayek’s critique of the classical liberal notion of the perfectly informed, rational market actor.
The core tenent is that the free market is the best allocator of factors of production and entrepreneurial profit is the guiding factor. The state tends to interfere with this. It's best summarized in the socialist calculation debate.
However, there's also basically a split (mostly reconciled these days) betwen a more Hayekian wing which is more accepting of the mainstream (and could possibly self-identify as neoliberals) and the state in general and a wing that is more in the spirit of von Mises.
Disclaimer: just interested in the history of economics, not an economist.
It seems the system co-opts everything, including rejection of the system.
Murray Rothbard wrote an entire profile on the man [0] and I'd suggest anybody taking a stab at heterodox economics to read it.
Man if there was ever a pot for a kettle...
I would say, I'd bet nobody having an argument about economics here has actually read much Keynes, or anything about classical/neo-liberalism. It all just turns into "I recognize some word related to the right, so I'll virtue signal and keep hyping it." Or more, "I see a free market economy argument happening, I must jump in and comment because markets are from God and I must support".
So I am simultaneously shy of saying "Kaynes was wrong" and confident that anyone claiming "Kaynes was right and we must do suchandsuch!" is saying the wrong thing. Ditto the other theories.
The mechanisms by which The One appears are rather simple and arranged in the Prime Program process: when the anomalies in the Matrix reach a certain threshold and begin to pose serious problems, a random human is selected by the machines to be born with a special code (the Integral Anomaly) that, as said before, ties and attaches all of the anomalies within the Matrix to the programming of this human. The Oracle, who is aware of The One's existence and purpose because it is her duty to guide humanity to find The One, will enlighten him to his true nature and lead him towards the Source where he fulfills his purpose of reinserting the Prime Program and resetting the Matrix. She does this by predicting the return of The One to the people of Zion to aid them in freeing humanity from the Machines' grip. The Architect, as creator of the Matrix, is also well aware of The One's existence and purpose, referring to The One as an "eventuality".
Grunge is a good example but the same thing happened to punk a generation earlier. Consciousness-raising sessions and second wave feminism quickly became unilever marketing cosmetic products using the language of empowerment. Pride was originally the first anniversary of a riot but now JP Morgan and the cops themselves are comfortable putting out a rainbow float. etc etc etc there are thousands of examples.
Anything that's visually recognizable as transgression will be commoditized until it's no longer transgressive. Many many cultural and art phenomena are downstream of and in response to this mechanic of consumer capitalism.
(I can see the other point of view, which is that Westwood was a nobody until consumerism took her and her designs to its bosom).
I guess I never really thought that commodification also worked for the values I grew into.