There is another paradox emerging from neoliberalism in my opinion: since corporations control more and more the state and impose regulations to protect corporations against social laws the people consider more and more the state to be the cause of their problem and do not see the cause of their misfortune, and Call even more for social deregulation and more "free competition "
Barnard Center for Research on Women -- thank for posting this. I have been wondering for a long time why women have not been willing to step up to the plate concerning neoliberalism and neocolonialism. We had the tax reductions in December 2017 and that to me was a women's issue as well as a people issue but there was silence from women and women politicians. In my readings, it seemed so many women have a very corporate view on economics with no current day Alice Pauls to be seen. Outside of Naomi Klein there has been a real truth embargo on women and economics. This was really hopeful. Thanks again.
pretty sure there's a mistake in the subtitles at 1:43. instead of "more resources [and] international security", it sounds like "more resources into national security", which would make more sense in the line of thinking.
Today, in a noble attempt to enlighten me on the intellectual labyrinth of her modern rhetorics class, my girlfriend sent me this video. I came into it with an open mind, expecting some nuanced take on the connections between liberalism and conservatism-maybe even a hot take or two. Instead, what I got was a steaming dumpster fire served with a side of emotional manipulation, garnished by an academic doing a TED Talk about her own book. I mean, talk about self-promotion-at this point, it’s not just a plug; it’s a life raft for an audience that probably stopped listening halfway through. Apparently, according to this lady, women being trafficked is somehow the fault of neoliberalism-you know, that same society that also birthed the organizations working overtime to rescue and rehabilitate them. It’s like blaming IKEA for the collapse of your bookshelf while ignoring the helpful little allen wrench they included to fix it. If we follow this logic, we might as well credit neoliberalism with creating the concept of brunch too. I mean, where does it stop? It genuinely blows my mind to see someone, in this day and age, twist trauma into an ideological scapegoat. Instead of uplifting survivors, it feels like she’s playing Hot Potato with who’s to blame. And I couldn’t help but wonder-aren’t we supposed to support women, not reduce them to metaphors for some abstract academic crusade? In the 21st century, you’d think we’d be past this kind of intellectual cannibalism, where buzzwords feast on empathy and critical thinking checks out faster than I did halfway through the video. Long story short, if this is what passes for modern rhetoric these days, I think my girlfriend owes me a bottle of wine and an apology. Or at least some reassurance that not all discussions on neoliberalism have to be this… utterly ridiculous.
5:59 For me the most important thought and observation: right in the moment where everyone declared "equal" under the law a process of wars, mass criminalization of groups of people nationally and internationally etc., sexism, racism etc. intensified
What a great job you have done in your video to make understood what neoliberalism really is and how it works for the rich and dehumanizes the poor and lower-middle class. Thanks, I now understand the world in a much deeper way.
Intellectual. Great analysis which concur with my study on the subject. One of the most important topics of our time. A subject though which is highly opaque and camouflaged to the masses of society. Therefore it is hard to create the level of consciousness and discussion about it because people are thinking about "other things". And as Anthony Sutton quoted the book "The Struggle Against The Historical Blackout" - "Even the great Rockefeller Foundation frankly admits (Annual Report 1946, p. 188) the subsidizing of corps of historians to anticipate and frustrate the development of any neo-Revisionism in our time." Thank you ladies for your forthrightness.
As a European, the American themes and language are not so easy to follow. However, Chang mentioned the paradox of American individualism, which I am aware of. Maybe Americans should pursue a local community lifestyle that borrows from various traditions. That traditional approach seems to offer what people want; Greater self governance. Closer involvement and better negotiating power with the state. A more active role in nation building.
Consensus building societies, often labeled as matriarchal, were overrun by the hierarchical alpha sociopath societies. Curtailing the adult status of those unwilling to respect the consensus building without coercion would be the foundational goal of getting to an egalitarian society. We need not suffer bullies, at all.
If not the most important, one of the most important contradictions in capitalism is the fact that one the one hand, employers try to pay their workers at least as it is possible (for example outsourcing, offshoring, etc.) but on the other hand, it would be ideal if every "other" employer paid the most to theirs (so that there could be enough purchasing power to buy the things they are producing). We see that with the US right now, most companies are offshoring to poor countries but selling in rich countries because there is where people gain enough to buy the things they are producing. The next step is automation, but clearly there will be a moment where this contradiction will not be able to develop further since people will not have enough money to pay even for very cheap automaticly produced goods.
As I listen to Prof Cheng I am not hearing (although she is saying) paradoxes, I am hearing the neoliberal sales pitch in some of her comparisons, differences between neoliberal and neoconservative in others, and true paradox within neoliberalism. I am not accusing her of doing these things, I am interpreting them as I hear her speak. The fault is mine, as over the last several years purveyors, disciples, and fence sitters have used neoliberal and neoconservative terms and principles to dynamically adjust to what is necessary to win and/or to suit their agendas.
See you all kinda broke it down best I've seen so far I been looking at liberalism intro videos and these white leftist dudes are decent at explaining why it's not economically sustainable but y'all are way better breaking down how the application of neoliberalism actually effects/harms our social relationships as well. Thanks for clarifying ✊🏾
So 1 - Paradox discussed neoliberal morality (or amorality) so to go to war. Going to war is a neoconservative principle. A neoliberal who goes to (or in President Obama's case stays in a few) war is using neoconservative thinking to achieve neoliberal goals. Neoconservatives have war as necessary and essential means to achieve neoconservative goals (Bush II/Cheyney).
Hayek wrote in his 1956 preface to Road to Serfdom not to confuse liberals with conservatives, and that a conservative government was bound to be a defender of established privilege, and would lean on government for protection of privilege, while the (neo) liberal position would be the denial of all privilege. Privilege, being the state granting rights and protections to some which are not available to others on equal terms.
Again, they are talking about conservatism. If neoliberalism is another word for right wing capitalism, why do so many people use the term to describe liberals who are not socialists?
mostly because neoliberalism was a term coined by left-wing scholars, in an incisively critical manner. to put it across even more bluntly, the objective was an articulate mockery of the system, hence "liberal". hope that this sheds some light on the matter.
Gosh, I am lost.....just before the nine minute mark. The concern for, antagonism of, assumptions about, and actions toward sex workers really gets convoluted here with the twists of whether neoliberalism is amoral or not. Wow, no wonder schools don;t teach, students don't learn, human trafficking proliferates and mutual respect is generalized for all based on the most unhinged set of sensitivities.
I think they are referring to a little bit more broad meaning of the term, several "rational principles" come to my mind: - Every individual is an informed, economically self maximizing entity. Always looking to make the most with the least money. - The law of supply and demand works perfectly, therefore the price of every good is what it is supposed to be (because if it was more than it ought to be, demand would lower and price would go down, and, if it was less than it ought to be, demand would go up and therefore price would go up with it). - Because the price of everything is what it is ought to be, the wealth of every citizen is a direct measure of its economic value and therefore it is justified. - Based on the two previous points, we can conclude that ALL government intervention in the market is harmful because it is altering this precious cycle of self regulating/optimizing of economic value and production.
I think the paradoxes are better explained by how the word “neoliberalism” is a blanket term used to describe multiple things. To assert that free market open borders is used to justify anti immigrant attitude just shows you don’t really know what you are talking about and instead creating a narrative where you can position yourself opposed to a jumble of things you put in a box
Huk Smass it actually shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about and know nothing about political theory. You should read up with an unbiased perspective, draw your own conclusions, and come back and decide weather or not you’d like to have the skill to engage in discourse surrounding political theory or not. I hope you enjoy it.
It's disheartening to see individuals discussing economic matters confidently, despite lacking a background in economics. When you delve deeper into their statements, like 'the rich getting richer whilst..,' it becomes apparent that they may not have a comprehensive understanding of economic principles." 😔
Ricardo Silva no they don’t this is for people who know what neo-liberalism is and it’s a discussion presented as neo-liberal critique. Either learn about it or don’t engage in it.
Ricardo Silva says: "There like radical 5 definition of neoliberalism, which one are you talking about." == neoliberalism is not even -ism or theory. It's a wish. What they are trying to do by bringing up -ism that gives an impression that there's ideology behind it. There isn't. Definition of neoliberalism is desire for maximum profit and what looks like theory behind it is actually an excuse. "Socialsim didn't work." is not a way to justify neoliberaism unless they can point to the period neoliberalism actually worked.
Daniel Natal that is what a paradox means. You guys realize this is theoretical critique and discussion not a class that you learn theory from. You should read up on theory, think for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Not a non-conclusion based on being triggered by bringing gender into it when gender does matter..
There is another paradox emerging from neoliberalism in my opinion: since corporations control more and more the state and impose regulations to protect corporations against social laws the people consider more and more the state to be the cause of their problem and do not see the cause of their misfortune, and Call even more for social deregulation and more "free competition "
th-cam.com/video/XwwiYA1m1Fw/w-d-xo.html
Goes along with your point I believe
Barnard Center for Research on Women -- thank for posting this. I have been wondering for a long time why women have not been willing to step up to the plate concerning neoliberalism and neocolonialism. We had the tax reductions in December 2017 and that to me was a women's issue as well as a people issue but there was silence from women and women politicians. In my readings, it seemed so many women have a very corporate view on economics with no current day Alice Pauls to be seen. Outside of Naomi Klein there has been a real truth embargo on women and economics. This was really hopeful. Thanks again.
Her voice is sooo relaxing
pretty sure there's a mistake in the subtitles at 1:43. instead of "more resources [and] international security", it sounds like "more resources into national security", which would make more sense in the line of thinking.
The body language here is strong and I'm living for it! This place has such great minds and eloquent spirits. What a dream for an academic. :)
Today, in a noble attempt to enlighten me on the intellectual labyrinth of her modern rhetorics class, my girlfriend sent me this video. I came into it with an open mind, expecting some nuanced take on the connections between liberalism and conservatism-maybe even a hot take or two. Instead, what I got was a steaming dumpster fire served with a side of emotional manipulation, garnished by an academic doing a TED Talk about her own book. I mean, talk about self-promotion-at this point, it’s not just a plug; it’s a life raft for an audience that probably stopped listening halfway through.
Apparently, according to this lady, women being trafficked is somehow the fault of neoliberalism-you know, that same society that also birthed the organizations working overtime to rescue and rehabilitate them. It’s like blaming IKEA for the collapse of your bookshelf while ignoring the helpful little allen wrench they included to fix it. If we follow this logic, we might as well credit neoliberalism with creating the concept of brunch too. I mean, where does it stop?
It genuinely blows my mind to see someone, in this day and age, twist trauma into an ideological scapegoat. Instead of uplifting survivors, it feels like she’s playing Hot Potato with who’s to blame. And I couldn’t help but wonder-aren’t we supposed to support women, not reduce them to metaphors for some abstract academic crusade? In the 21st century, you’d think we’d be past this kind of intellectual cannibalism, where buzzwords feast on empathy and critical thinking checks out faster than I did halfway through the video.
Long story short, if this is what passes for modern rhetoric these days, I think my girlfriend owes me a bottle of wine and an apology. Or at least some reassurance that not all discussions on neoliberalism have to be this… utterly ridiculous.
5:59 For me the most important thought and observation: right in the moment where everyone declared "equal" under the law a process of wars, mass criminalization of groups of people nationally and internationally etc., sexism, racism etc. intensified
What a great job you have done in your video to make understood what neoliberalism really is and how it works for the rich and dehumanizes the poor and lower-middle class. Thanks, I now understand the world in a much deeper way.
So let's sum up - amoral, selfishness, paranoia and tyranny
sounds like a perfect ideology for sociopaths
lol You got me laughing on that comment, myyyyyy goodness. Too funny to glance down and see that.
Intellectual. Great analysis which concur with my study on the subject. One of the most important topics of our time. A subject though which is highly opaque and camouflaged to the masses of society. Therefore it is hard to create the level of consciousness and discussion about it because people are thinking about "other things". And as Anthony Sutton quoted the book "The Struggle Against The Historical Blackout" - "Even the great Rockefeller Foundation frankly admits (Annual Report 1946, p. 188) the subsidizing of corps of historians to anticipate and frustrate the development of any neo-Revisionism in our time." Thank you ladies for your forthrightness.
this was quite a clumsy comment. perhaps english isn't your first language. nice insight though... i suppose.
Well said Andre!!
Ryan, 0/10.
@@iceydaywalker9198 THAT was an unnecessary personal attack. Deal with the substance and not the manner.
Paradox’s is a very very nice way to say the stupidity of neoliberalism. The rate of incarceration in the USA reminds me of Stalinist Soviet Union.
Thank you for posting this talk
As a European, the American themes and language are not so easy to follow. However, Chang mentioned the paradox of American individualism, which I am aware of. Maybe Americans should pursue a local community lifestyle that borrows from various traditions. That traditional approach seems to offer what people want; Greater self governance. Closer involvement and better negotiating power with the state. A more active role in nation building.
This lady, Dr. Cheng, has a beautiful way of moving her hands. Other than, obviously, she has some great points.
Consensus building societies, often labeled as matriarchal, were overrun by the hierarchical alpha sociopath societies. Curtailing the adult status of those unwilling to respect the consensus building without coercion would be the foundational goal of getting to an egalitarian society. We need not suffer bullies, at all.
If not the most important, one of the most important contradictions in capitalism is the fact that one the one hand, employers try to pay their workers at least as it is possible (for example outsourcing, offshoring, etc.) but on the other hand, it would be ideal if every "other" employer paid the most to theirs (so that there could be enough purchasing power to buy the things they are producing). We see that with the US right now, most companies are offshoring to poor countries but selling in rich countries because there is where people gain enough to buy the things they are producing. The next step is automation, but clearly there will be a moment where this contradiction will not be able to develop further since people will not have enough money to pay even for very cheap automaticly produced goods.
As I listen to Prof Cheng I am not hearing (although she is saying) paradoxes, I am hearing the neoliberal sales pitch in some of her comparisons, differences between neoliberal and neoconservative in others, and true paradox within neoliberalism. I am not accusing her of doing these things, I am interpreting them as I hear her speak. The fault is mine, as over the last several years purveyors, disciples, and fence sitters have used neoliberal and neoconservative terms and principles to dynamically adjust to what is necessary to win and/or to suit their agendas.
Joe Ciliberto isn’t neo-conservatism symptomatic of neo-conservatism?
Joe Ciliberto it’s not about winning. It’s about having a conversation on political theory
See you all kinda broke it down best I've seen so far I been looking at liberalism intro videos and these white leftist dudes are decent at explaining why it's not economically sustainable but y'all are way better breaking down how the application of neoliberalism actually effects/harms our social relationships as well. Thanks for clarifying ✊🏾
Such a good video 🙌
So 1 - Paradox discussed neoliberal morality (or amorality) so to go to war. Going to war is a neoconservative principle. A neoliberal who goes to (or in President Obama's case stays in a few) war is using neoconservative thinking to achieve neoliberal goals. Neoconservatives have war as necessary and essential means to achieve neoconservative goals (Bush II/Cheyney).
Hayek wrote in his 1956 preface to Road to Serfdom not to confuse liberals with conservatives, and that a conservative government was bound to be a defender of established privilege, and would lean on government for protection of privilege, while the (neo) liberal position would be the denial of all privilege. Privilege, being the state granting rights and protections to some which are not available to others on equal terms.
I disagree with Professors Bernstein's declaration of what freedom is. She describes instead liberties (just doing anything at all).
Good. A fair elaboration.
IAM PHD,I FEEL THIS INTERVIEW RELEVANT TO MY INTERPRETATION OF NEOLIBERALISM
20 mins about Neoliberalism without mentioning capitalism once :thinking:
Audio is too quiet!
thanks youtube, could've used this video years ago
Over six years have passed and things have only got worse, the trajectory is not reassuring.
so are these people in a union. . hey 2013~? whoa
Great work
Again, they are talking about conservatism. If neoliberalism is another word for right wing capitalism, why do so many people use the term to describe liberals who are not socialists?
mostly because neoliberalism was a term coined by left-wing scholars, in an incisively critical manner. to put it across even more bluntly, the objective was an articulate mockery of the system, hence "liberal". hope that this sheds some light on the matter.
Gosh, I am lost.....just before the nine minute mark. The concern for, antagonism of, assumptions about, and actions toward sex workers really gets convoluted here with the twists of whether neoliberalism is amoral or not. Wow, no wonder schools don;t teach, students don't learn, human trafficking proliferates and mutual respect is generalized for all based on the most unhinged set of sensitivities.
Can anyone explain "rational market principles" to me?
Katherine Broughton
"Rationality" is typically defined as gathering information prior to making a decision.
I think they are referring to a little bit more broad meaning of the term, several "rational principles" come to my mind:
- Every individual is an informed, economically self maximizing entity. Always looking to make the most with the least money.
- The law of supply and demand works perfectly, therefore the price of every good is what it is supposed to be (because if it was more than it ought to be, demand would lower and price would go down, and, if it was less than it ought to be, demand would go up and therefore price would go up with it).
- Because the price of everything is what it is ought to be, the wealth of every citizen is a direct measure of its economic value and therefore it is justified.
- Based on the two previous points, we can conclude that ALL government intervention in the market is harmful because it is altering this precious cycle of self regulating/optimizing of economic value and production.
@@javierfernandez1126 excellent answer!
I think the paradoxes are better explained by how the word “neoliberalism” is a blanket term used to describe multiple things.
To assert that free market open borders is used to justify anti immigrant attitude just shows you don’t really know what you are talking about and instead creating a narrative where you can position yourself opposed to a jumble of things you put in a box
Exactly. Neoliberalism is literally for immigration, not against it.
Huk Smass it actually shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about and know nothing about political theory. You should read up with an unbiased perspective, draw your own conclusions, and come back and decide weather or not you’d like to have the skill to engage in discourse surrounding political theory or not. I hope you enjoy it.
9:25 hello
South park season 19
What hPpened to the Wichita Line Man's pension?
I need a beer.
It's disheartening to see individuals discussing economic matters confidently, despite lacking a background in economics. When you delve deeper into their statements, like 'the rich getting richer whilst..,' it becomes apparent that they may not have a comprehensive understanding of economic principles." 😔
Fail! you need to define a principle before you attack it. There like radical 5 definition of neoliberalism, which one are you talking about.
that was actually the subject of the first video: th-cam.com/video/7kL4p3llmHk/w-d-xo.html
Ricardo Silva no they don’t this is for people who know what neo-liberalism is and it’s a discussion presented as neo-liberal critique. Either learn about it or don’t engage in it.
Ricardo Silva says:
"There like radical 5 definition of neoliberalism, which one are you talking about."
==
neoliberalism is not even -ism or theory.
It's a wish.
What they are trying to do by bringing up -ism that gives an impression that there's ideology behind it.
There isn't.
Definition of neoliberalism is desire for maximum profit and what looks like theory behind it is actually an excuse.
"Socialsim didn't work." is not a way to justify neoliberaism unless they can point to the period neoliberalism actually worked.
Rhetoric around borders and cultures because there is no borders but the policy is national ethnic replacement. Think about it through
Gosh, such a load of BS. Only the british Lady has a interesting point. The rest.... omg.
Daniel Natal that is what a paradox means. You guys realize this is theoretical critique and discussion not a class that you learn theory from. You should read up on theory, think for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Not a non-conclusion based on being triggered by bringing gender into it when gender does matter..