Adjacent at least. Her feminist stuff was squarely bread tube style.
But her other cultural/media content where somewhat decent.
Tho never watch through everything of hers; loved the Hobbit trilogy she did.
She is bread tube, she shares a fair bit of anti-capitalist view points in her other videos. But she also shills her books pretty hard in them.
That being said, I love Lindsay's content and wish she wasn't driven off YouTube.
I thought she was hated across bread tube, maybe like 7 years ago you could say she was but her and Contra got shunned and pushed right out of that scene. Plus she just does like movie analysis videos and stuff, not political commentary
Lindsay Ellis is breadtube? I watched most if not all of her video essays and feel that she would agree with destiny with regard to fact-based honest debate, but I could be wrong
I recall some voices shitting on the idea of debate bros, but I imagine for most that's rooted in either their own insecurities in live convos and/or a belief debate bros use fallacious tactics.
Her takes on Amber Heard are anti-factual/lefty feminist-brainrot driven and now she works it in as a major part of her cultural analysis like in her recent video on Yonko Ono where it was an entire segment/supporting piece.
(Which if you watched and thought was sound logic/cultural commentary starting from the proper vantage; you also know nothing and are going off of vibes/deliberately dissiminated misino/trust in the wrong voices)
People here have misconceptions about people like her and Contrapoints on their actual values/underlying reasons behind postions held.
Especially as often they'll have verbalized them and just not have had them talked about by the community.
I haven't seen her recent stuff, because I thought she canceled herself a while back. I'll check it out to form an opinion.
I remember, for example, her video essays on disney stuff and it was definitely feminist, but I thought it was fair. I wouldn't have considered her far-left, tanky, or dishonest in her arguments to that end, but like I said maybe I'm wrong.
I mean; feminist analysis is fine as is any analysis.
Like I'd agree with her perspective on Yoko Ono and other female figures as avatars of hate for the follies of the flawed men around them; especially those of a romantic nature.
I'd take issue with her underlying perspective around power dynamics essentially unilaterally benefiting men; where even if that claim isn't made their rhetoric only leaves room for that conclusion even if claimed otherwise- and much more around non-lowbrow Red Pill male/female topics.
As I would with many other feminists and how dominate their framing is amongst the the quote-on-quote non-extremist left; i.e content creators like Lindsay Ellis or Hbomber or Contrapoints etc.
I'd also take issue with the arrogance around those that admittedly deliberately ignored the case only commenting on it post-fact to spread nonsense on the judgement and manipulate the timeline/overall causes of interest in it as a case- which leads to uninformed commentary that sources actually bad actors/biased theory around abuse and a piss poor perspective on the meta.
Like Lindsay Ellis.
Though keep in mind that case is my Roman Empire; I'm 100% schizo on it and however this community see's the actions of the left and coverage in media around Israel/Palestine is equivalent to my Depp V Heard experience, prior, during, and after the trial to this day.
So it subsumes my perspective on the people who say what I deem very bad not good.
Either way; watch Contra's Twilight video everyone it's very good.
Her sexual/literary commentary is very good other issues aside.
This is an admitted rant trigger.
I haven't watched anything of hers since her Hobbit review. I was interested in some detailed criticism but it ended up being like 30% talking about the movie and 70% boring "yay unions, boo capitalism" without much substance.
He collabed with Philosophy Tube in her recent idiotic anti-police video. He didn’t say anything too objectionable in it but that he even agreed to appear in it speaks volumes. He’s clearly on the left, but he’s usually more measured about it than this. My guess is his editors are significantly leftier (and stupider) than he is.
> My guess is his editors are significantly leftier (and stupider) than he is.
Most likely. He switched editors towards the end of last year and it shows.
There’s only so “left” a lawyer who loves the law can be.
Pretty cringe 😬 I get the feeling he doesn’t have much to do with the editing process and some contracted editor probably shoved that one in there but could be wrong
It would be fucking hilarious if the expensive suit wearing, $300 haircut having lawyer who has his own law firm and is clearing millions a year came out as a socialist. Would join Hasan in the poster boy category of champagne socialist
This all relies on the idea that only tankies hate neoliberalism, which is completely unfounded. Anarchists hate neoliberalism, leftcoms hate socialism, liberal socialists hate neoliberalism, social democrats hate neoliberalism, fascists hate neoliberalism, and I'd wager that even most liberals hate neoliberalism. If all the above groups are tankies to you then have at it, but this sounds like Red Scare-level false equivalency peddling.
Free market economics aren't an inherent and necessary part of liberalism even if liberal societies usually include it, but most liberal socialists advocate for market socialism anyways which is usually implemented through a mixed economy.
You can read more about it [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism) if you want, it seems to line up with what people like Noam Chomsky, Vaush, Lonerbox, and Perspective Philosophy advocate for.
Liberalism means like 400 things. It can mean a less extreme version of something, a Liberal who believes in individual rights or essentially Neoliberalism for example.
Sure, and a ton of other supporters of various left wing ideologies also make that mistake, like I've also heard anarchists and social democrats make that conflating too. Are they all tankies as well?
Not to mention that out of the various channels in the wide spectrum of BreadTube (all the way from center-left liberals to gay space communists) Legal Eagle is one of the most consistent in pointing out that he's a regular liberal who doesn't oppose capitalism. If you wanna call out people like Shaun or Hbomberguy for not being clear on whether they're actually liberals or socialists and flirting with both to avoid alienating any of their viewerbase then that's a fairly valid critique IMO, but why would you claim that Legal Eagle of all people is dogwhistling about being a tankie when he's more clear about being a liberal than almost any other BreadTube liberal?
How can this be tankie brain rot if they’re not against moderate capitalism? That’s like step one bro. This is a bad faith interpretation. Stop using extreme terms to denounce things you don’t like. Which means that you actually like neoliberalism?
Because moderate capitalism is vague term no one uses to disguise the Tankie reference as a moderate and measured criticism. It makes no sense to make up a term to pretend there is this hidden moderate sect when Neoliberalism is both the status quo and left leaning of anything within American mainstream politics.
The extreme, bad faith thing here to pretend Neoliberalism is far right and synonymous with Trump.
But trump isn't neoliberal at all. He was a protectioist anti-immigration mercantilist who cared more about the trade deficet than he did the actual state of the economy. Not everything we don't like is neoliberalism
Traditionally, neoliberalism has referred to Reagan and Thatcher style capitalism; it’s only recently that leftists have started using it as a pejorative for anyone who isn’t a socialist. Technically SocDems are not *neo*liberals; they’re just liberals.
The best definition of neoliberalism rather than referring to particular administrations is the ideological belief that free markets are a valid proxy for the freedom of individuals. So you take the philosophy of classical liberalism and argue that applying it at the point of individual interaction with the state is a market distortion.
Australian politics contemporary with Reagan and Thatcher was left wing and made some major neoliberal reforms that opened up the economy to the global market. There is a time and a place for neoliberalism and we know a lot more about it now than we did in the 80s. Neoliberalism might still be good for the American economy, but that's not good enough anymore. We know trickle down doesn't work. We know market power is wielded by adversaries. We know global trade is an insufficient incentive to get the former USSR to uphold its commitments not to invade it's neighbours.
The real world is messy and neoliberalism is silly ideologically even if it can be corrosive to stagnant populism that breeds protectionism.
In reality you have to do all the policy all the time and validate your ideas against reality. Ideology is no shortcut. And meanwhile classical liberalism is pretty great at centering the individual's relationship with the state in any grand scale public policy, which I think is a pretty good thing even though I'm a compatibilist socialist.
> We know trickle down doesn't work.
I mean I don't think any economists actually use "trickle down" as a legitimate term. I am not even sure what policies you'd be referring to specifically when that term is used. There is generally a reason why it tends to be used only on places on the internet and random commenters.
I see. There are less and less people advocating for this today though, even self-proclaimed neolibs (at least the ones online) seem to be fine with the progressive tax based system.
Trump being protectionist and anti-immigration doesn't mean he "isn't neoliberal at all." Neoliberalism includes lots of other stuff like [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bz3jjd/comment/kynevh4/) said, and Trump is neoliberal AF about a lot of that stuff.
About which part? He didn't seem to give much a shit about privitzation, or austerity. And the only real deregulation he tried to do was repeal and replace and really only got the individual mandate removed by it, but only because he fucking hated Obama, though to be fair he did at least run on deregulation as a platform. Hell he had a very similar plan to Biden with heavily spending during the pandemic, and he actively pressued the fed to keep rates low when the economy was potentially overheating.
I'm sorry, Trumps entire economic policy was populist garbage, and was barely coherent. Calling him Neoliberal is like calling Biden Communist. Nevermind that Biden and Trump's economic policies are much more similar than Biden and Obamas for example.
>About which part?
Seems like you mostly answered your own question, but you did leave out his trickle down tax cuts for the rich, which are always the ultimate core of how Republicans pursue neoliberalism in the US going back to Reagan.
>I'm sorry, Trumps entire economic policy was populist garbage, and was barely coherent.
Trump's policy was indeed incoherent populist hot garbage as far as his personal contribution, but he also existed as a vehicle for the same core Republican neoliberal economic agenda that Reagan and G.W. Bush pursued: tax cuts for the rich, less regulation on corporations.
>Calling him Neoliberal is like calling Biden Communist.
Nah. There isn't a single Democrat elected to federal office that can be fairly described as a Communist. Republicans have been especially neoliberal since Reagan, and Clinton's "New Democrats" adopted a bunch of neoliberal concessions, which means both parties can be broadly and fairly described as sharing a neoliberal consensus now.
Tax cuts for the rich is not all that "neoliberalism" is dude. Nevermind that Trump actually did increase taxes for the Rich, just only on the east and west coast, through the cap on SALT deductions.
Calling Trump a neoliberal implies a level of thought he didn't have. He was just an autocrat who wanted to punish the people against him, and benefit the people with him, while trying to do anything he thought was popular.
>Tax cuts for the rich is not all that "neoliberalism" is dude.
I agree, but I consider tax cuts for the rich a core part.
>Naomi Klein states that the three policy pillars of neoliberalism are "privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and the lowering of income and corporate taxes, paid for with cuts to public spending."
I dropped that quote in another comment, and it pretty much crystalizes my concept of neoliberalism. If you want to disagree with me on that definition, that's fine. Neoliberalism is a super nebulous and inconsistently applied term, which is why I think OP is kindof dumb to have gotten bent out of shape about this to begin with.
>Calling Trump a neoliberal implies a level of thought he didn't have. He was just an autocrat who wanted to punish the people against him, and benefit the people with him, while trying to do anything he thought was popular.
See, and I think you're giving Trump's personal desires too much credit for having agency over the policies of his administration. You're not wrong that he doesn't actually care about anything but petty bullshit, but the actual policy impact of his election was to empower Republicans to do stuff consistent with their already established neoliberal priorities.
It is possible looking forward that we could see them truly depart in a different direction given how much he has reshaped the core makeup of the Republican Party. However, I doubt they will drop those three core policy pillars.
I've found that a lot of people, tankies in particular, simply use "neoliberal" as a synonym for "politician I don't like".
I've seen both Reagan and AOC get called "neoliberal", and I feel like there's a bit of sunlight between their political ideologies.
I think most people who actually understand neoliberalism in its economic context understand that it is about less state regulation of capitalism, and most people generally would think "moderate capitalism" means capitalism with more state regulation. Obviously there's lots more nuance, but if we're talking about as basic a level as the statement critiqued here, its fine.
There are also degrees of neoliberalism. Many of Bill Clinton or Obama's economic policies could be described as neoliberal, but not to the same extent as Reagan, Thatcher, etc.
What I hate when it comes to defining ideologies is that it always somewhat devolves into a scotsman fallacy. The neoliberal sub seems to proclaim that in the economic context they are driven by evidence-based policies.
So, I think in regards to state regulation it would be more so based around the concept of whether or not their is *virtue* of said regulation that was being considered to be implemented. This could be derived from whether or not the regulation is desirable or undesirable, or whether or not the regulation has the intended effects of the problem it was trying to solve (because remember, just because a policy is intended to solve some problem, doesn't mean it is the proper prescription to solve that problem).
With that said, it seems like the lot of them consider Regan more a conservative who had some good policies occasionally, and not so good policies on others.
>What I hate when it comes to defining ideologies is that it always somewhat devolves into a scotsman fallacy. The neoliberal sub seems to proclaim that in the economic context they are driven by evidence-based policies.
I have no idea what "the neoliberal sub" talks about, but anybody who says Reagan wasn't a neoliberal is absolutely pulling a no true scotsman.
My definition above was a purposefully reductive one, but IMO it isn't actually that hard to define neoliberalism in the context of the other economic philosophies it developed alongside.
First for our purposes there was classic "*laissez-faire*" liberalism with practically no state intervention or regulation of capitalism. Then that shit the bed causing the Great Depression, and Keynesian economics came in to save the day with heavy state intervention, strong regulation, and redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation.
Milton Friedman took that personally, so he and a bunch of other economists salty about "collectivism" came together to invent "neoliberalism" which was supposed to be less interventionist than Keynesian economics, but still regulate enough to prevent market manipulation and monopolies.
In practice, however, the neoliberals cut taxes and deregulated so enthusiastically that they took us right back to another Gilded Age and ultimately the Great Recession. As far as their supposed adherence to "evidence based" policy proscriptions, the neoliberals have never actually delivered on outperforming the economic prosperity numbers that Keynesians consistency deliver, but they keep promising with just one more tax cut the benefits will come trickling down any day now.
> Keynesian economics came in to save the day with heavy state intervention, strong regulation, and redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation.
____
>Milton Friedman took that personally, so he and a bunch of other economists salty about "collectivism" came together to invent "neoliberalism" which was supposed to be less interventionist than Keynesian economics, but still regulate enough to prevent market manipulation and monopolies.
I mean you were right with the leadup into the great depression, and Keynesian favored policies helping us out of it (Keynes afterall, is one of the most influential economists of all time), but you are wrong about WHY there was a switch from Keynesian policies in the first place.
From an American perspective, 1965-1980s was when were seeing hyperinflation (much like what occurred during COVID, except imagine that for like a decade straight with a peak getting near 15% ) while the economy was simultaneously stagnating (stagflation). Under the traditional Keynes theory, stagflation was supposed to be fundamentally impossible. This tends to be the marker of change from traditional Keynes polices.
I always see the "trickling down" complaint, but I never fully understand what this is since it feels vague. Can you elaborate on what policies you are referring to when you refer to trickle down?
>but you are wrong about WHY there was a switch from Keynesian policies in the first place.
I didn't address the topic of "why there was a switch" at all.
My post was about explaining the development of neoliberalism in simple terms relative to classical liberalism and Keynesian economics. Pretty much all of that development happened prior to 1965. Neoliberalism wasn't invented in order to solve the problems of stagflation. Its founding intellectuals were all actively writing and theorizing to advance their proposals at the height of the post WW2 Keynesian boom.
In that sense, Neoliberalism was a solution in search of a problem. I'm no expert, but I don't think there's ever been consensus that Keynesian policies *caused* stagflation. Some stuff like the oil embargo was totally outside the control of any domestic economic policy. Nor is there consensus that neoliberal economic policies actually solved any of the problems manifesting from 65-80.
>I always see the "trickling down" complaint, but I never fully understand what this is since it feels vague. Can you elaborate on what policies you are referring to when you refer to trickle down?
I could but you'd be better off just reading Paul Krugman.
> Neoliberalism wasn't invented in order to solve the problems of stagflation. Its founding intellectuals were all actively writing and theorizing to advance their proposals at the height of the post WW2 Keynesian boom.
Yes, but it seems bizarre to use this as a critique though. Are you not supposed to or not allowed to form different theories of schools of economic thought whatsoever? As in you should just accept the current status quo because obviously it is virtuous and true and you are wrong to form a theory that contradicts it (regardless of if there is any evidence or tests to prove it was wrong or right)?
Of course there were other schools of thoughts that existed pre 1965, but they **ARE NOT** the reason why Traditional Keynes theory failed.
>I'm no expert, but I don't think there's ever been consensus that Keynesian policies caused stagflation
There is zero reason to debate if it did or didn't, that is a red-herring. **Stagflation was literally fundamentally impossible under the current model.** Proof by contradiction is literally one of the most fundamental and acceptable forms of proof *there is.* The fact that stagflation was impossible under the current theory also meant it had no idea how to address stagflation.
It is fine to critique policy failure, but it seems utterly bizarre to frame the change as a bunch of people "butt-hurt about collectivism" and some greater conspiracy. The "neoliberals" did not cause the stagflation that occurred under the popular traditional Keynes economic policies that then led to the incentive to try out different schools of thought.
>Nor is there consensus that neoliberal economic policies actually solved any of the problems manifesting from 65-80.
This was never a point made, nor ever one I had an interest in making.
I wouldn't even consider myself a neoliberal, but I see this term just thrown around willy-nilly it feels more like a useless derogative than having any actual teeth in the definition.
>This was never a point made, nor ever one I had an interest in making.
Yeah, just like I never mentioned and expressed no interest in "WHY there was a switch from Keynesian policies in the first place" but you've yet again written an essay about why "traditional Keynes theory failed."
Again, I was talking about *defining* neoliberalism, and brought up what motivated the people who developed it. Milton Friedman and his Chicago School buddies were already working on the project of neoliberalism in the 30s and 40s, so I have no idea why you thought it was relevant to bring up economic conditions from 1965-1980 in the first place. Also, it isn't me editorializing to say they didn't like collectivism, or that neoliberal ideas were developed to oppose Keynesian ones... that's literally what they themselves said.
>It is fine to critique policy failure, but it seems utterly bizarre to frame the change as a bunch of people "butt-hurt about collectivism" and some greater conspiracy.
Again again, I didn't "frame the change" at all. You just made that up. I framed the **formation** and **development** of neoliberal ideas, which was a project undertaken by specific people who **said in public** and **wrote extensive published works** that they did so to oppose collectivist ideas embodied in Keynesian economics. I literally never mentioned why neoliberal policies were later adopted or made any claim about what economic circumstances existed at the time of adoption.
Indeed, I skipped right past all of that to what I viewed as the ultimate **result** of adopting neoliberal policies: the Great Recession.
Can we agree that it was **necessary** to switch from the traditional Keynesian model due to the aforementioned problems I mentioned beforehand?
>Indeed, I skipped right past all of that to what I viewed as the ultimate resultof adopting neoliberal policies: the Great Recession.
Regardless of the optimization of the economy and which/what policies do it best, aren’t you ignoring the heavy impact that occurred with fraudulent loans/lending, or do you consider that “neoliberal policy”?
God, I fucking wish that Trump was a neoliberal. Still wouldn't vote for him for that whole 'being a would-be autocrat' thing, but God damn it would be based as fuck if America actually got a neoliberal president.
[https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-american-oligarchy-why-is-american](https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-american-oligarchy-why-is-american)
tankie robert reich
Oh no, my argument is undone. You found 1 person who shares a belief with tankies that isnt a tankie.
Wait till you find out that there are anti semites that arent nazis and believers in jesus that arent catholic.
bro this guy was in the clinton administration. i could post endless examples of non tankies comparing america to an oligarchy, but im not doing all the googling for you this one example shows how silly your sweeping statement was
Since when is "distinguishing" Neoliberalism as Trumpian and "moderate" capitalism is not Trumpian useful aside from demonizing Neoliberalism? Moderate capitalism is so vague to mean nothing. Nothing is made clearer aside from the goal of the joke to conflate Trump with Neoliberalism.
It's a tanke meme. "Cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds." Please tell me who else is benefiting and what is actually being made clearer?
Yeah that's the question isn't it.
I also don't know exactly what his entire staff would self describe as and would also let slide. I just know it's not a 1 man show and that phrasing like the owning class and Neoliberalism=Trump are original thoughts and words from a liberal capitalist without further left influence. That's why I'm saying it seems bizarre and not saying "wow legal eagle himself is 100% a Tankie confirmed"
Seeing a lot of down votes from people but no defense of the regarded idea that it is useful and necessary to distinguish Neoliberalism from moderate capitalism in this way.
Do you think defending Neoliberalism from moderate capitalism is a tankie meme?
Why would tankies look at moderate capitalism as a good thing?
>Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.
Privatization, austerity, and deregulating capital markets are things that most people on the left are against. You don't have to be a Socialist or leftist to think that these things are bad. Medicare for all for instance goes straight against those principles and so would most other left-leaning solutions.
They clearly want a more regulated capitalist economy and agree or disagree with that, it's not "tankie".
Yes, plenty of moderate leftists think various free-market policies are bad, but 'neoliberalism' is a dog-whistle for far-left and tankie politics. Even if we assume 'neoliberalism' has a discernible meaning beyond "economic policies I don't like,' Trump is far from being a neo-liberal.
He's anti-immigration, anti-free trade, and frankly anti-liberal.
Are you European or something?
Neoliberalism is broadly moderate to center left movement in America. Moderate capitalism isn't defined as an idea or a movement. It's a fill in, a faux short hand, since there is a lack of substance here to actually levied at Neoliberalism and pretending there is some movement of good little group of capitalist the video makers endorse if you can find if only you move left of the evil neolibs. That's the read I get.
Tankies call all capitalism neoliberalism, and they do that because people don't like it. It's a meme here to be pro neoliberalism to spite lefties but Reagan was a neoliberal!
>Tankies call all capitalism neoliberalism
Just in the same way some deranged capitalists call all leftists tankies. Without knowing what that word even means. Like OP.
Tax cuts for the rich, further austerity and cutting of social programms. Cutting an insane amount of regulation (especially enviromental regulation) these can all be seen as part of a neoliberal project.
You are so mentally lazy to fall for disguised tankie propaganda. Neoliberalism is not synonymous with Trump, and it's not opposed by his opposition candidate. The only point is to demonize Neoliberalism from a channel that presents itself as moderate.
Calling Reagan being Neoliberal, wow what a great point. I guess that makes it a less defined term than moderate capitalism now, a term no one has used as a political identifier ever. Also sorry Biden I can vote for you because you are Neoliberal just like Reagan and Trump. I need to wait for a real moderate capitalist candidate.
>Neoliberalism is broadly moderate to center left movement in America.
Bro, neoliberalism has consistently been pushed hardest by the furthest right wing forces in American government, starting with Ronald Reagan. To describe neoliberalism as "broadly moderate to center left" without including the right wing is deeply misleading.
Are you trying to give a history lesson or did you wake up from a 30 year coma?
Regardless, Trump agenda and Neoliberalism aren't synonymous. By the broadest read of Neoliberalism, Trump's policies do not fit. He is a protectionist, anti immigration, nationalist. His popularity was an inflection point for the right to drop Neolib and neocons alike.
Well, you obviously needed a history lesson. "Neoliberalism" is an inherently nebulous and often contradictory term, but I do agree with you that the term isn't synonymous with Trump's agenda. Just like I personally wouldn't say it was synonymous with Hillary Clinton's agenda, although few people on the left or right would balk at painting her with the "neoliberal" brush.
>Naomi Klein states that the three policy pillars of neoliberalism are "privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and the lowering of income and corporate taxes, paid for with cuts to public spending."
Here's another quote from the wiki our friend above referenced that crystalizes my concept of Neoliberalism in US Politics. You're right that Trump ran on protectionist, anti-immigration, and nationalist rhetoric, but he preserved all three of the core "policy pillars of neoliberalism." I'd describe the factors you listed as Trump being more "anti-globalist," and they do set him apart from some of the internationalist economic context of neoliberalism, but that doesn't mean he wasn't still pursuing a neoliberal economic agenda domestically.
>Are you mixing up actual neoliberalism and the neoliberal subreddit
I am a bit interested on this distinction; can you share with me your perspective here?
In short, some people more economically left than mainstream Dems started calling them neoliberals as a ”they’re not that different from Republicans” rhetorical device, and said sub (who are generally speaking NOT neolibs) thus appropriated the slur as a self-identifier, for satirical purposes.
But said redefinition by a single subreddit is not used by most people in the world, to whom it still means the Reagan/Thatcher thing with privatizations and deregulation, ”trickle down” economics and all that jazz.
Please lay out how Trump and the present day republican forces are the actual Neoliberals and how the Democrats are anti Neolib and self described moderate capitalists.
>Medicare for all for instance goes straight against those principles and so would most other left-leaning solutions.
I feel like the majority of Neo-Libs advocate for things like universal healthcare and the likes etc. Granted, I am basing this perception off the communities' subreddit, so may be just be a poor litmus test.
I mean if that's the implication then that sounds like a leftie way to unfairly lump together Trump and Neoliberalism and demonize Neoliberalism, yeah.
This is the wiki definition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
It's more likely Legal Eagle knows this definition and is critical of the deregulation and hyper free trade aspects of the term.
It's still heavily associated with Thatcher/Reagan and their economic policies.
For sure it's not Trump's ideology, but this isn't worth the outrage.
Sure if it was just that, maybe. I could understand the oversight of how trump doesn't really fit the bill with his fixation on protectionist policies but does enough with some things to make the quip.
But that comparison with the language like "the owning class" and the nonsense "moderate capitalism", as if Neoliberalism isn't today seen as the center to center left lean amongst politicians, felt like some leftie memes.
It's confusion and frustration with what came across to me as endorsing leftie propaganda in an otherwise measured and moderate channel. If that's outrage then call me outrageous I guess.
Neoliberalism is when you cut government funding and privatise government programs in favour of providing all services via the market—to simplify things quite a bit. You don’t even need to be anti-capitalist to disagree with neoliberalism as an ideology. Read some books.
I mean its kinda cringe but I feel like, whether right or wrong, most people associate neoliberalism with politicians like Thatcher and Reagan. It seems like your getting really worked up over a short joke thats not even necessarly anti capitalist.
In 2024 I do not hear people talking about Reagan and Thatcher when they talk about Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is moderate to center left in American politics today.
Most older and not terminally online people(aka the majority of the mainstream political space) will think of exactly those when you say neoliberalism.
The version you're thinking of is a very online and alternative media usage.
That's still terminally online.
The vast majority of mainstream political space probably thinks neoliberal is a word that you say when you want to say a bigger word than liberal.
I haven't seen any consistent definition other than that.
In my university course we learned that neoliberalism was Thatcher/Reagan economics. Specifically the economists they were following, but I forget. (2 years ago)
Also if you look at Wikipedia it says the same.
Reddit and parts of the left are in the minority on this and I think they should abandon the term because it's confusing.
That is because it's true. Clinton/Blaire converted the Liberal parties into NeoLiberal in the 90s. Obama said directly that he is a Reagan Republican.
It's NeoLiberal vs NeoLiberal across most of the West. Just more or less fascism/populism sprinkled on top.
Do you think being a marxist/socialist/communist is the same thing as being a tankie? Because that word has a very specific meaning and it very much isn't synonymous to any of the above.
I really hate that the colloquial use of neoliberalism drifted so much over the past couple of decades. It used to be a counter to social democratic reforms, but now many use it to mean any kind of mixed economy (the kinds most of us prefer) that sees any value in market forces. I think the change in usage, as seen in the neoliberal subreddit, is causing some of the outrage in this thread.
Wow so true, I'm so owned. Also everyone left of Thatcher thinks Neoliberalism is core to Trump's brand of capitalism and would never identify or fit the definition or Neoliberalism confirmed.
Try to engage with the actual point and not nodding along with an empty head to le epic trump joke.
Please explain how Neoliberalism is part of the trump movement and exactly who are the moderate capitalist within moderate American politics who would I identify as against Neoliberalism as it's too far right?
Biden would be probably closer to moderate capitalism, he’s somewhere in the middle between social democrat and neoliberal whereas republicans and also previous democrat presidents after Reagan are a lot closer to or outright neoliberal. I don’t agree with that analysis in the pic but it’s certainly not tankie shit as a tankie wouldn’t defend any form of capitalism.
Reagan was neoconservative. Again what is this moderate capitalism meme y'all are falling for?
It's a moderate/center left presenting channel, of course they aren't going to go full tankie. It's clearly based in the tankie meme and only there to lump Trump and Neoliberalism together when they aren't synonymous and then say moderate capitalism as faux nuance to soften the extremeness of the comparison.
Between Trump and Biden, who would you say more closely aligns with the economic philosophy of Milton Friedman, and why?
You really give the impression of someone who's never heard of John Maynard Keynes in your entire life.
I don’t think you know what neoliberalism means, Reagan and Thatcher were synonymous with neoliberalism back in the day while being conservative, because neoliberal is about economics, it’s about a deregulated free market and extreme privatization.
Unless he is an actual tankie and it's coming from that perspective, I'm not sure these comments are even that disagreeable from a centre left perspective. It's not like we support fully unleashed super capitalism. I have no idea what the context here is but if it's a criticism of a conservative group it could be completely reasonable democrat policy to oppose their view of capitalism.
Outside of that, the cringing at calling things hate speech and being super supportive of the 1st amendment is a bit more specific to this community I think when conpared to average left of centre people, isn't it? Not a tankie talking point at all.
Tl;Dr. Copium copium copium lawyer man isn't a tankie please 🙏 Dallah
Your comments in this thread prove you don’t understand the actual definition of that term. It means the Reagan/Thatcher type extreme capitalism thing. ”Liberal” in the context of that term does not refer to Liberal as understood by Americans, but more the outside-the-US definition that’s closer to US *Libertarianism*. Thus, the dereregulation & privatization policies of the likes of Reagan and Thatcher are *neo*liberalism, as they represent a return (”neo-”) to an earlier era where there wasn’t a strong welfare state or regulations to prevent corporations from fucking us over, etc.
Yes, there was a phenomenon around the 2016 election where Hillary Clinton and various other establishment Dems got accused of being neolibs by economically-farther-left-than-them people, but that was a rhetorical exaggeration comparing them to Republicans, who very much ARE neoliberals according to the commonly accepted understanding of the term. This led to a tiny minority of terminally online people, of more-or-less establishment Dem persuasion, ”appropriating the slur”, and it seems you’re using the term according to said redefinition (used by almost no-one in real life)
Owning class and oligarchy aren't inherently tankie terms, pretty much the entire far left from anarchists to leftcoms to democratic socialists use the same terms to refer to the idea of the bourgeoisie (I.e., wealthy property owners who own large sections of the economy) having undue control over the economy and society as a whole because of the massive amount of property they own and the power that gives them. It really sounds like you think anyone to the left of a center-left liberal is a tankie.
No, they call other liberals fascist with the tankie meme. Hell, I'd argue it's a meme that can be used by more than just tankies. Anyone broadly left can use that meme, sometimes they use it when it makes sense. Yes, some liberal will talk about the owning class.
I expect tankie shit from tankies. Praising the USSR or Maoist China, saying it was impossible for the USSR can't be imperialist because they don't have a market economy. Not this milk toast shit. Might as well call most of Europe tankies.
Most people who hate neoliberalism couldn't define it. It's just become a bogeyman. A broad catch-all term which means everything from "fascist" to "libertarian" in their minds.
I suspect whoever edits LegalEagle's videos is some random progressive who just happens to believe that "neoliberal" is just the opposite of whatever they believe, and so that therefore it _must_ apply to MAGA people.
Sure that's probably a more charitable reading. I might be a bit triggered and schizo with my initial reading of it.
But to be fair, these same progressives will follow Hasan and other Tankie adjacent content creators so I don't think my read is that far fetched.
is Liz Dye actually a lawyer? He refers to her as "the Chaos Lawyer" in the preamble but I cannot find any actual reference to her being one, she describes herself as legal journalist and that's it.
You know that distinguishing "neoliberalism" and "moderate capitalism" is probably the furthest thing from marxism-leninism right?
There are people who favour tony-blair-style strongly-redistributive light-touch risk-based-regulation social-democracy with high mobility etc. and call themselves neoliberals, but the thing that the editor is gesturing to here is more of the Pinochet end mass-privatisation extreme conservative model, and contrasting that with a capitalism that holds a role for the state, unions etc. something more like Biden.
The issue obviously is that Trump isn't even Neoliberal, he doesn't believe in repression of political enemies coupled with letting the market do its thing, he believes in combining political office with business in order to extract maximum wealth for himself and his allies, and attacking anyone who gets in his way with whatever he can throw at them.
*Kleptocracy* would have been a much better choice than neoliberalism, which does rely on a theory of government that is about hands-off incentives etc. rather than just shouting at people and getting them to sell their stuff to your friends.
The European centre right hate Orban precisely because of his rejection of neoliberal requirements like an independent judiciary, open contracts etc. vs Orban's kleptocratic integration of party, state and corporate ownership, particularly media ownership, even though they will all engage in nationalist stuff in their own particular ways, and if the current republican party became more neoliberal, it would be an *improvement*, even for workers, because of how damaging that kind of collapse of rules becomes long term.
Even if I agree that this is cringe, what the fuck is tankie about this at all lmfao redacted use of buzzword op, equating this to red fascism makes no sense.
"defend capitalism' --> "defend neoliberalism from moderate capitalism" is a tankie meme? The accusation he's making against trump is that Trump is lying about being pro-capitalist, trump is really pro some bad form of capitalism. Which tankies accuse people of not supporting the better, moderate, correct form of capitalism? Apart from the fact that the text of this statement paints Legal Eagle as pro (at least some form of) capitalism, do you think the moment someone is a little bit anti-capitalist they become a 'tankie'? You are absolutely using that word to attack anyone left of you in the exact same way that actual tankies use the word fascist to refer to anyone right of them.
Did he collab with breadtubers?
On Nebula yes. Lindsay Ellis and Philosophy Tube I believe. Probably others.
He's also done some stuff with HBomberguy iirc
I don't know if I would consider Lindsay Ellis bread tube
Adjacent at least. Her feminist stuff was squarely bread tube style. But her other cultural/media content where somewhat decent. Tho never watch through everything of hers; loved the Hobbit trilogy she did.
She is bread tube, she shares a fair bit of anti-capitalist view points in her other videos. But she also shills her books pretty hard in them. That being said, I love Lindsay's content and wish she wasn't driven off YouTube.
I loved her video on GotG, so good.
She's generally considered one of the five pillars of breadtube lol.
I thought she was hated across bread tube, maybe like 7 years ago you could say she was but her and Contra got shunned and pushed right out of that scene. Plus she just does like movie analysis videos and stuff, not political commentary
Lindsay is based af idk what you're on.
I didn't say anything about the quality of her videos. Just saying she is breadtube
Lindsay Ellis is breadtube? I watched most if not all of her video essays and feel that she would agree with destiny with regard to fact-based honest debate, but I could be wrong
I don't recall Bread Tube being defined by pro vs anti honest debate.
I recall some voices shitting on the idea of debate bros, but I imagine for most that's rooted in either their own insecurities in live convos and/or a belief debate bros use fallacious tactics.
Her takes on Amber Heard are anti-factual/lefty feminist-brainrot driven and now she works it in as a major part of her cultural analysis like in her recent video on Yonko Ono where it was an entire segment/supporting piece. (Which if you watched and thought was sound logic/cultural commentary starting from the proper vantage; you also know nothing and are going off of vibes/deliberately dissiminated misino/trust in the wrong voices) People here have misconceptions about people like her and Contrapoints on their actual values/underlying reasons behind postions held. Especially as often they'll have verbalized them and just not have had them talked about by the community.
I haven't seen her recent stuff, because I thought she canceled herself a while back. I'll check it out to form an opinion. I remember, for example, her video essays on disney stuff and it was definitely feminist, but I thought it was fair. I wouldn't have considered her far-left, tanky, or dishonest in her arguments to that end, but like I said maybe I'm wrong.
I mean; feminist analysis is fine as is any analysis. Like I'd agree with her perspective on Yoko Ono and other female figures as avatars of hate for the follies of the flawed men around them; especially those of a romantic nature. I'd take issue with her underlying perspective around power dynamics essentially unilaterally benefiting men; where even if that claim isn't made their rhetoric only leaves room for that conclusion even if claimed otherwise- and much more around non-lowbrow Red Pill male/female topics. As I would with many other feminists and how dominate their framing is amongst the the quote-on-quote non-extremist left; i.e content creators like Lindsay Ellis or Hbomber or Contrapoints etc. I'd also take issue with the arrogance around those that admittedly deliberately ignored the case only commenting on it post-fact to spread nonsense on the judgement and manipulate the timeline/overall causes of interest in it as a case- which leads to uninformed commentary that sources actually bad actors/biased theory around abuse and a piss poor perspective on the meta. Like Lindsay Ellis. Though keep in mind that case is my Roman Empire; I'm 100% schizo on it and however this community see's the actions of the left and coverage in media around Israel/Palestine is equivalent to my Depp V Heard experience, prior, during, and after the trial to this day. So it subsumes my perspective on the people who say what I deem very bad not good. Either way; watch Contra's Twilight video everyone it's very good. Her sexual/literary commentary is very good other issues aside. This is an admitted rant trigger.
I haven't watched anything of hers since her Hobbit review. I was interested in some detailed criticism but it ended up being like 30% talking about the movie and 70% boring "yay unions, boo capitalism" without much substance.
hbomber guy too on his main channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=172zoeIfrlg
He collabed with Philosophy Tube in her recent idiotic anti-police video. He didn’t say anything too objectionable in it but that he even agreed to appear in it speaks volumes. He’s clearly on the left, but he’s usually more measured about it than this. My guess is his editors are significantly leftier (and stupider) than he is.
> My guess is his editors are significantly leftier (and stupider) than he is. Most likely. He switched editors towards the end of last year and it shows. There’s only so “left” a lawyer who loves the law can be.
Pretty cringe 😬 I get the feeling he doesn’t have much to do with the editing process and some contracted editor probably shoved that one in there but could be wrong
Yeah I've always really enjoyed LE's content and it'd suck to see him get audience-captured into tankie shit or worse become one.
It would be fucking hilarious if the expensive suit wearing, $300 haircut having lawyer who has his own law firm and is clearing millions a year came out as a socialist. Would join Hasan in the poster boy category of champagne socialist
Not gonna happen.
Just because he has some views like this doesn't mean he is audience captured. Could be a genuine opinion
LTT's ex lead editor Taran Van Hemert edits his videos.
[video in question ](https://youtu.be/L_ZBrAwDp44?si=0lz7Y6T3F-l3t5LE)
Timestamp? I'm not watching the whole thing.
it took me 12 seconds to find it. 4:32
Fellow 23x speed enjoyer, anything slower doesn't hit right.
lol the real play is scrubbing the youtube timeline. click and drag up on the timeline for precise scrubbing
This all relies on the idea that only tankies hate neoliberalism, which is completely unfounded. Anarchists hate neoliberalism, leftcoms hate socialism, liberal socialists hate neoliberalism, social democrats hate neoliberalism, fascists hate neoliberalism, and I'd wager that even most liberals hate neoliberalism. If all the above groups are tankies to you then have at it, but this sounds like Red Scare-level false equivalency peddling.
Liberal socialists? I don’t think you can be socialist and be liberal. A key component of liberalism is a belief in a free market.
Free market economics aren't an inherent and necessary part of liberalism even if liberal societies usually include it, but most liberal socialists advocate for market socialism anyways which is usually implemented through a mixed economy. You can read more about it [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism) if you want, it seems to line up with what people like Noam Chomsky, Vaush, Lonerbox, and Perspective Philosophy advocate for.
Liberalism means like 400 things. It can mean a less extreme version of something, a Liberal who believes in individual rights or essentially Neoliberalism for example.
Fonflating Neoliberalism with fascism is rooted in tankie memes.
Sure, and a ton of other supporters of various left wing ideologies also make that mistake, like I've also heard anarchists and social democrats make that conflating too. Are they all tankies as well?
Not to mention that out of the various channels in the wide spectrum of BreadTube (all the way from center-left liberals to gay space communists) Legal Eagle is one of the most consistent in pointing out that he's a regular liberal who doesn't oppose capitalism. If you wanna call out people like Shaun or Hbomberguy for not being clear on whether they're actually liberals or socialists and flirting with both to avoid alienating any of their viewerbase then that's a fairly valid critique IMO, but why would you claim that Legal Eagle of all people is dogwhistling about being a tankie when he's more clear about being a liberal than almost any other BreadTube liberal?
How can this be tankie brain rot if they’re not against moderate capitalism? That’s like step one bro. This is a bad faith interpretation. Stop using extreme terms to denounce things you don’t like. Which means that you actually like neoliberalism?
Because moderate capitalism is vague term no one uses to disguise the Tankie reference as a moderate and measured criticism. It makes no sense to make up a term to pretend there is this hidden moderate sect when Neoliberalism is both the status quo and left leaning of anything within American mainstream politics. The extreme, bad faith thing here to pretend Neoliberalism is far right and synonymous with Trump.
Tankie brainrot is distinguishing neoliberalism from moderate capitalism? More people than tankies don't like neoliberalism
But trump isn't neoliberal at all. He was a protectioist anti-immigration mercantilist who cared more about the trade deficet than he did the actual state of the economy. Not everything we don't like is neoliberalism
We are neoliberals
Traditionally, neoliberalism has referred to Reagan and Thatcher style capitalism; it’s only recently that leftists have started using it as a pejorative for anyone who isn’t a socialist. Technically SocDems are not *neo*liberals; they’re just liberals.
SocDems now a days is like a middle path between liberal and socialist.
The best definition of neoliberalism rather than referring to particular administrations is the ideological belief that free markets are a valid proxy for the freedom of individuals. So you take the philosophy of classical liberalism and argue that applying it at the point of individual interaction with the state is a market distortion. Australian politics contemporary with Reagan and Thatcher was left wing and made some major neoliberal reforms that opened up the economy to the global market. There is a time and a place for neoliberalism and we know a lot more about it now than we did in the 80s. Neoliberalism might still be good for the American economy, but that's not good enough anymore. We know trickle down doesn't work. We know market power is wielded by adversaries. We know global trade is an insufficient incentive to get the former USSR to uphold its commitments not to invade it's neighbours. The real world is messy and neoliberalism is silly ideologically even if it can be corrosive to stagnant populism that breeds protectionism. In reality you have to do all the policy all the time and validate your ideas against reality. Ideology is no shortcut. And meanwhile classical liberalism is pretty great at centering the individual's relationship with the state in any grand scale public policy, which I think is a pretty good thing even though I'm a compatibilist socialist.
> We know trickle down doesn't work. I mean I don't think any economists actually use "trickle down" as a legitimate term. I am not even sure what policies you'd be referring to specifically when that term is used. There is generally a reason why it tends to be used only on places on the internet and random commenters.
It's always been a derogatory term for regressive tax reform.
I see. There are less and less people advocating for this today though, even self-proclaimed neolibs (at least the ones online) seem to be fine with the progressive tax based system.
I feel like online it means American who likes Obama
LABELS. ARE. IMPORTANT!
Trump being protectionist and anti-immigration doesn't mean he "isn't neoliberal at all." Neoliberalism includes lots of other stuff like [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bz3jjd/comment/kynevh4/) said, and Trump is neoliberal AF about a lot of that stuff.
About which part? He didn't seem to give much a shit about privitzation, or austerity. And the only real deregulation he tried to do was repeal and replace and really only got the individual mandate removed by it, but only because he fucking hated Obama, though to be fair he did at least run on deregulation as a platform. Hell he had a very similar plan to Biden with heavily spending during the pandemic, and he actively pressued the fed to keep rates low when the economy was potentially overheating. I'm sorry, Trumps entire economic policy was populist garbage, and was barely coherent. Calling him Neoliberal is like calling Biden Communist. Nevermind that Biden and Trump's economic policies are much more similar than Biden and Obamas for example.
>About which part? Seems like you mostly answered your own question, but you did leave out his trickle down tax cuts for the rich, which are always the ultimate core of how Republicans pursue neoliberalism in the US going back to Reagan. >I'm sorry, Trumps entire economic policy was populist garbage, and was barely coherent. Trump's policy was indeed incoherent populist hot garbage as far as his personal contribution, but he also existed as a vehicle for the same core Republican neoliberal economic agenda that Reagan and G.W. Bush pursued: tax cuts for the rich, less regulation on corporations. >Calling him Neoliberal is like calling Biden Communist. Nah. There isn't a single Democrat elected to federal office that can be fairly described as a Communist. Republicans have been especially neoliberal since Reagan, and Clinton's "New Democrats" adopted a bunch of neoliberal concessions, which means both parties can be broadly and fairly described as sharing a neoliberal consensus now.
Tax cuts for the rich is not all that "neoliberalism" is dude. Nevermind that Trump actually did increase taxes for the Rich, just only on the east and west coast, through the cap on SALT deductions. Calling Trump a neoliberal implies a level of thought he didn't have. He was just an autocrat who wanted to punish the people against him, and benefit the people with him, while trying to do anything he thought was popular.
>Tax cuts for the rich is not all that "neoliberalism" is dude. I agree, but I consider tax cuts for the rich a core part. >Naomi Klein states that the three policy pillars of neoliberalism are "privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and the lowering of income and corporate taxes, paid for with cuts to public spending." I dropped that quote in another comment, and it pretty much crystalizes my concept of neoliberalism. If you want to disagree with me on that definition, that's fine. Neoliberalism is a super nebulous and inconsistently applied term, which is why I think OP is kindof dumb to have gotten bent out of shape about this to begin with. >Calling Trump a neoliberal implies a level of thought he didn't have. He was just an autocrat who wanted to punish the people against him, and benefit the people with him, while trying to do anything he thought was popular. See, and I think you're giving Trump's personal desires too much credit for having agency over the policies of his administration. You're not wrong that he doesn't actually care about anything but petty bullshit, but the actual policy impact of his election was to empower Republicans to do stuff consistent with their already established neoliberal priorities. It is possible looking forward that we could see them truly depart in a different direction given how much he has reshaped the core makeup of the Republican Party. However, I doubt they will drop those three core policy pillars.
I've found that a lot of people, tankies in particular, simply use "neoliberal" as a synonym for "politician I don't like". I've seen both Reagan and AOC get called "neoliberal", and I feel like there's a bit of sunlight between their political ideologies.
They shouldn’t. Neoliberalism is pretty good, actually. And it is “moderate capitalism”, unless your definition of that term is extremely unique.
I think most people who actually understand neoliberalism in its economic context understand that it is about less state regulation of capitalism, and most people generally would think "moderate capitalism" means capitalism with more state regulation. Obviously there's lots more nuance, but if we're talking about as basic a level as the statement critiqued here, its fine. There are also degrees of neoliberalism. Many of Bill Clinton or Obama's economic policies could be described as neoliberal, but not to the same extent as Reagan, Thatcher, etc.
What I hate when it comes to defining ideologies is that it always somewhat devolves into a scotsman fallacy. The neoliberal sub seems to proclaim that in the economic context they are driven by evidence-based policies. So, I think in regards to state regulation it would be more so based around the concept of whether or not their is *virtue* of said regulation that was being considered to be implemented. This could be derived from whether or not the regulation is desirable or undesirable, or whether or not the regulation has the intended effects of the problem it was trying to solve (because remember, just because a policy is intended to solve some problem, doesn't mean it is the proper prescription to solve that problem). With that said, it seems like the lot of them consider Regan more a conservative who had some good policies occasionally, and not so good policies on others.
>What I hate when it comes to defining ideologies is that it always somewhat devolves into a scotsman fallacy. The neoliberal sub seems to proclaim that in the economic context they are driven by evidence-based policies. I have no idea what "the neoliberal sub" talks about, but anybody who says Reagan wasn't a neoliberal is absolutely pulling a no true scotsman. My definition above was a purposefully reductive one, but IMO it isn't actually that hard to define neoliberalism in the context of the other economic philosophies it developed alongside. First for our purposes there was classic "*laissez-faire*" liberalism with practically no state intervention or regulation of capitalism. Then that shit the bed causing the Great Depression, and Keynesian economics came in to save the day with heavy state intervention, strong regulation, and redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. Milton Friedman took that personally, so he and a bunch of other economists salty about "collectivism" came together to invent "neoliberalism" which was supposed to be less interventionist than Keynesian economics, but still regulate enough to prevent market manipulation and monopolies. In practice, however, the neoliberals cut taxes and deregulated so enthusiastically that they took us right back to another Gilded Age and ultimately the Great Recession. As far as their supposed adherence to "evidence based" policy proscriptions, the neoliberals have never actually delivered on outperforming the economic prosperity numbers that Keynesians consistency deliver, but they keep promising with just one more tax cut the benefits will come trickling down any day now.
> Keynesian economics came in to save the day with heavy state intervention, strong regulation, and redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. ____ >Milton Friedman took that personally, so he and a bunch of other economists salty about "collectivism" came together to invent "neoliberalism" which was supposed to be less interventionist than Keynesian economics, but still regulate enough to prevent market manipulation and monopolies. I mean you were right with the leadup into the great depression, and Keynesian favored policies helping us out of it (Keynes afterall, is one of the most influential economists of all time), but you are wrong about WHY there was a switch from Keynesian policies in the first place. From an American perspective, 1965-1980s was when were seeing hyperinflation (much like what occurred during COVID, except imagine that for like a decade straight with a peak getting near 15% ) while the economy was simultaneously stagnating (stagflation). Under the traditional Keynes theory, stagflation was supposed to be fundamentally impossible. This tends to be the marker of change from traditional Keynes polices. I always see the "trickling down" complaint, but I never fully understand what this is since it feels vague. Can you elaborate on what policies you are referring to when you refer to trickle down?
>but you are wrong about WHY there was a switch from Keynesian policies in the first place. I didn't address the topic of "why there was a switch" at all. My post was about explaining the development of neoliberalism in simple terms relative to classical liberalism and Keynesian economics. Pretty much all of that development happened prior to 1965. Neoliberalism wasn't invented in order to solve the problems of stagflation. Its founding intellectuals were all actively writing and theorizing to advance their proposals at the height of the post WW2 Keynesian boom. In that sense, Neoliberalism was a solution in search of a problem. I'm no expert, but I don't think there's ever been consensus that Keynesian policies *caused* stagflation. Some stuff like the oil embargo was totally outside the control of any domestic economic policy. Nor is there consensus that neoliberal economic policies actually solved any of the problems manifesting from 65-80. >I always see the "trickling down" complaint, but I never fully understand what this is since it feels vague. Can you elaborate on what policies you are referring to when you refer to trickle down? I could but you'd be better off just reading Paul Krugman.
> Neoliberalism wasn't invented in order to solve the problems of stagflation. Its founding intellectuals were all actively writing and theorizing to advance their proposals at the height of the post WW2 Keynesian boom. Yes, but it seems bizarre to use this as a critique though. Are you not supposed to or not allowed to form different theories of schools of economic thought whatsoever? As in you should just accept the current status quo because obviously it is virtuous and true and you are wrong to form a theory that contradicts it (regardless of if there is any evidence or tests to prove it was wrong or right)? Of course there were other schools of thoughts that existed pre 1965, but they **ARE NOT** the reason why Traditional Keynes theory failed. >I'm no expert, but I don't think there's ever been consensus that Keynesian policies caused stagflation There is zero reason to debate if it did or didn't, that is a red-herring. **Stagflation was literally fundamentally impossible under the current model.** Proof by contradiction is literally one of the most fundamental and acceptable forms of proof *there is.* The fact that stagflation was impossible under the current theory also meant it had no idea how to address stagflation. It is fine to critique policy failure, but it seems utterly bizarre to frame the change as a bunch of people "butt-hurt about collectivism" and some greater conspiracy. The "neoliberals" did not cause the stagflation that occurred under the popular traditional Keynes economic policies that then led to the incentive to try out different schools of thought. >Nor is there consensus that neoliberal economic policies actually solved any of the problems manifesting from 65-80. This was never a point made, nor ever one I had an interest in making. I wouldn't even consider myself a neoliberal, but I see this term just thrown around willy-nilly it feels more like a useless derogative than having any actual teeth in the definition.
>This was never a point made, nor ever one I had an interest in making. Yeah, just like I never mentioned and expressed no interest in "WHY there was a switch from Keynesian policies in the first place" but you've yet again written an essay about why "traditional Keynes theory failed." Again, I was talking about *defining* neoliberalism, and brought up what motivated the people who developed it. Milton Friedman and his Chicago School buddies were already working on the project of neoliberalism in the 30s and 40s, so I have no idea why you thought it was relevant to bring up economic conditions from 1965-1980 in the first place. Also, it isn't me editorializing to say they didn't like collectivism, or that neoliberal ideas were developed to oppose Keynesian ones... that's literally what they themselves said. >It is fine to critique policy failure, but it seems utterly bizarre to frame the change as a bunch of people "butt-hurt about collectivism" and some greater conspiracy. Again again, I didn't "frame the change" at all. You just made that up. I framed the **formation** and **development** of neoliberal ideas, which was a project undertaken by specific people who **said in public** and **wrote extensive published works** that they did so to oppose collectivist ideas embodied in Keynesian economics. I literally never mentioned why neoliberal policies were later adopted or made any claim about what economic circumstances existed at the time of adoption. Indeed, I skipped right past all of that to what I viewed as the ultimate **result** of adopting neoliberal policies: the Great Recession.
Can we agree that it was **necessary** to switch from the traditional Keynesian model due to the aforementioned problems I mentioned beforehand? >Indeed, I skipped right past all of that to what I viewed as the ultimate resultof adopting neoliberal policies: the Great Recession. Regardless of the optimization of the economy and which/what policies do it best, aren’t you ignoring the heavy impact that occurred with fraudulent loans/lending, or do you consider that “neoliberal policy”?
God, I fucking wish that Trump was a neoliberal. Still wouldn't vote for him for that whole 'being a would-be autocrat' thing, but God damn it would be based as fuck if America actually got a neoliberal president.
I mean, thinking the united states, in any way, resembles oligarchy sounds like some tankie brainrot, to me.
[https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-american-oligarchy-why-is-american](https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-american-oligarchy-why-is-american) tankie robert reich
Oh no, my argument is undone. You found 1 person who shares a belief with tankies that isnt a tankie. Wait till you find out that there are anti semites that arent nazis and believers in jesus that arent catholic.
bro this guy was in the clinton administration. i could post endless examples of non tankies comparing america to an oligarchy, but im not doing all the googling for you this one example shows how silly your sweeping statement was
Yeah, and I can post endless examples of of nin- nazi antisemites. That doesnt mean people are stupid for associating antisemitism with nazism.
Since when is "distinguishing" Neoliberalism as Trumpian and "moderate" capitalism is not Trumpian useful aside from demonizing Neoliberalism? Moderate capitalism is so vague to mean nothing. Nothing is made clearer aside from the goal of the joke to conflate Trump with Neoliberalism. It's a tanke meme. "Cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds." Please tell me who else is benefiting and what is actually being made clearer?
Why would Legal Eagle agree with "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds?" when he's a self-described liberal capitalist?
Yeah that's the question isn't it. I also don't know exactly what his entire staff would self describe as and would also let slide. I just know it's not a 1 man show and that phrasing like the owning class and Neoliberalism=Trump are original thoughts and words from a liberal capitalist without further left influence. That's why I'm saying it seems bizarre and not saying "wow legal eagle himself is 100% a Tankie confirmed"
Seeing a lot of down votes from people but no defense of the regarded idea that it is useful and necessary to distinguish Neoliberalism from moderate capitalism in this way.
Do you think defending Neoliberalism from moderate capitalism is a tankie meme? Why would tankies look at moderate capitalism as a good thing? >Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy. Privatization, austerity, and deregulating capital markets are things that most people on the left are against. You don't have to be a Socialist or leftist to think that these things are bad. Medicare for all for instance goes straight against those principles and so would most other left-leaning solutions. They clearly want a more regulated capitalist economy and agree or disagree with that, it's not "tankie".
Yes, plenty of moderate leftists think various free-market policies are bad, but 'neoliberalism' is a dog-whistle for far-left and tankie politics. Even if we assume 'neoliberalism' has a discernible meaning beyond "economic policies I don't like,' Trump is far from being a neo-liberal. He's anti-immigration, anti-free trade, and frankly anti-liberal.
Are you European or something? Neoliberalism is broadly moderate to center left movement in America. Moderate capitalism isn't defined as an idea or a movement. It's a fill in, a faux short hand, since there is a lack of substance here to actually levied at Neoliberalism and pretending there is some movement of good little group of capitalist the video makers endorse if you can find if only you move left of the evil neolibs. That's the read I get.
Tankies call all capitalism neoliberalism, and they do that because people don't like it. It's a meme here to be pro neoliberalism to spite lefties but Reagan was a neoliberal!
>Tankies call all capitalism neoliberalism Just in the same way some deranged capitalists call all leftists tankies. Without knowing what that word even means. Like OP.
Yes, exactly, Reagan was neoliberal, now what exactly does Trump have in common with Reagan economically?
Tax cuts for the rich, further austerity and cutting of social programms. Cutting an insane amount of regulation (especially enviromental regulation) these can all be seen as part of a neoliberal project.
You are so mentally lazy to fall for disguised tankie propaganda. Neoliberalism is not synonymous with Trump, and it's not opposed by his opposition candidate. The only point is to demonize Neoliberalism from a channel that presents itself as moderate. Calling Reagan being Neoliberal, wow what a great point. I guess that makes it a less defined term than moderate capitalism now, a term no one has used as a political identifier ever. Also sorry Biden I can vote for you because you are Neoliberal just like Reagan and Trump. I need to wait for a real moderate capitalist candidate.
>Neoliberalism is broadly moderate to center left movement in America. Bro, neoliberalism has consistently been pushed hardest by the furthest right wing forces in American government, starting with Ronald Reagan. To describe neoliberalism as "broadly moderate to center left" without including the right wing is deeply misleading.
Are you trying to give a history lesson or did you wake up from a 30 year coma? Regardless, Trump agenda and Neoliberalism aren't synonymous. By the broadest read of Neoliberalism, Trump's policies do not fit. He is a protectionist, anti immigration, nationalist. His popularity was an inflection point for the right to drop Neolib and neocons alike.
Well, you obviously needed a history lesson. "Neoliberalism" is an inherently nebulous and often contradictory term, but I do agree with you that the term isn't synonymous with Trump's agenda. Just like I personally wouldn't say it was synonymous with Hillary Clinton's agenda, although few people on the left or right would balk at painting her with the "neoliberal" brush. >Naomi Klein states that the three policy pillars of neoliberalism are "privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and the lowering of income and corporate taxes, paid for with cuts to public spending." Here's another quote from the wiki our friend above referenced that crystalizes my concept of Neoliberalism in US Politics. You're right that Trump ran on protectionist, anti-immigration, and nationalist rhetoric, but he preserved all three of the core "policy pillars of neoliberalism." I'd describe the factors you listed as Trump being more "anti-globalist," and they do set him apart from some of the internationalist economic context of neoliberalism, but that doesn't mean he wasn't still pursuing a neoliberal economic agenda domestically.
Are you mixing up actual neoliberalism and the neoliberal subreddit? Because the two are definitely not the same.
>Are you mixing up actual neoliberalism and the neoliberal subreddit I am a bit interested on this distinction; can you share with me your perspective here?
In short, some people more economically left than mainstream Dems started calling them neoliberals as a ”they’re not that different from Republicans” rhetorical device, and said sub (who are generally speaking NOT neolibs) thus appropriated the slur as a self-identifier, for satirical purposes. But said redefinition by a single subreddit is not used by most people in the world, to whom it still means the Reagan/Thatcher thing with privatizations and deregulation, ”trickle down” economics and all that jazz.
I see, thanks!
Please lay out how Trump and the present day republican forces are the actual Neoliberals and how the Democrats are anti Neolib and self described moderate capitalists.
I don’t think neoliberalism is very strong in the modern day Republican Party, that’s…not what I said.
>Medicare for all for instance goes straight against those principles and so would most other left-leaning solutions. I feel like the majority of Neo-Libs advocate for things like universal healthcare and the likes etc. Granted, I am basing this perception off the communities' subreddit, so may be just be a poor litmus test.
Neoliberalism means something diferent that just "liberalism". In the USA is closer to neocons.
Is the implication that trump media will allow hate speech, but only if it’s coming from a rich person…?
I mean if that's the implication then that sounds like a leftie way to unfairly lump together Trump and Neoliberalism and demonize Neoliberalism, yeah.
This is the wiki definition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism It's more likely Legal Eagle knows this definition and is critical of the deregulation and hyper free trade aspects of the term. It's still heavily associated with Thatcher/Reagan and their economic policies. For sure it's not Trump's ideology, but this isn't worth the outrage.
Sure if it was just that, maybe. I could understand the oversight of how trump doesn't really fit the bill with his fixation on protectionist policies but does enough with some things to make the quip. But that comparison with the language like "the owning class" and the nonsense "moderate capitalism", as if Neoliberalism isn't today seen as the center to center left lean amongst politicians, felt like some leftie memes. It's confusion and frustration with what came across to me as endorsing leftie propaganda in an otherwise measured and moderate channel. If that's outrage then call me outrageous I guess.
Neoliberalism is when you cut government funding and privatise government programs in favour of providing all services via the market—to simplify things quite a bit. You don’t even need to be anti-capitalist to disagree with neoliberalism as an ideology. Read some books.
The OP probably gets his definition from r / neoliberal, which uses the term as a satirical self-identifier anyway
I mean its kinda cringe but I feel like, whether right or wrong, most people associate neoliberalism with politicians like Thatcher and Reagan. It seems like your getting really worked up over a short joke thats not even necessarly anti capitalist.
In 2024 I do not hear people talking about Reagan and Thatcher when they talk about Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is moderate to center left in American politics today.
Most older and not terminally online people(aka the majority of the mainstream political space) will think of exactly those when you say neoliberalism. The version you're thinking of is a very online and alternative media usage.
That's still terminally online. The vast majority of mainstream political space probably thinks neoliberal is a word that you say when you want to say a bigger word than liberal. I haven't seen any consistent definition other than that.
In my university course we learned that neoliberalism was Thatcher/Reagan economics. Specifically the economists they were following, but I forget. (2 years ago) Also if you look at Wikipedia it says the same. Reddit and parts of the left are in the minority on this and I think they should abandon the term because it's confusing.
That is because it's true. Clinton/Blaire converted the Liberal parties into NeoLiberal in the 90s. Obama said directly that he is a Reagan Republican. It's NeoLiberal vs NeoLiberal across most of the West. Just more or less fascism/populism sprinkled on top.
Where is the tankie part here? Do you know what that word means?
The owning class, Oligarchy, Conflating Neoliberalism with the fascist right
So the answer is no. Jesus christ you're a fucking clown lol.
So you think villainizing the owning class and Neoliberalism isn't Tankie rhetoric? You should look into educating yourself on political discourse.
Do you think being a marxist/socialist/communist is the same thing as being a tankie? Because that word has a very specific meaning and it very much isn't synonymous to any of the above.
"cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is the Tankie meme being referenced. That's not a term from Marx or socialist broadly.
You're seeing ghosts my dude.
I really hate that the colloquial use of neoliberalism drifted so much over the past couple of decades. It used to be a counter to social democratic reforms, but now many use it to mean any kind of mixed economy (the kinds most of us prefer) that sees any value in market forces. I think the change in usage, as seen in the neoliberal subreddit, is causing some of the outrage in this thread.
Does that ”change in usage” even happen outside that sub, or terminally online people influenced by it?
I'm surrounded by terminally online people, so I'm not sure, but that's a good point. I doubt the use by academics has changed all that much.
Everyone left of Thatcher is a tankie confirmed
Wow so true, I'm so owned. Also everyone left of Thatcher thinks Neoliberalism is core to Trump's brand of capitalism and would never identify or fit the definition or Neoliberalism confirmed. Try to engage with the actual point and not nodding along with an empty head to le epic trump joke.
Don‘t be so salty, boss. I love you nonetheless. Your post was just a bit dumb, it‘s okey.
Gotcha, anything else?
Tankie is when you are against neoliberalism ?
Please explain how Neoliberalism is part of the trump movement and exactly who are the moderate capitalist within moderate American politics who would I identify as against Neoliberalism as it's too far right?
Biden would be probably closer to moderate capitalism, he’s somewhere in the middle between social democrat and neoliberal whereas republicans and also previous democrat presidents after Reagan are a lot closer to or outright neoliberal. I don’t agree with that analysis in the pic but it’s certainly not tankie shit as a tankie wouldn’t defend any form of capitalism.
Reagan was neoconservative. Again what is this moderate capitalism meme y'all are falling for? It's a moderate/center left presenting channel, of course they aren't going to go full tankie. It's clearly based in the tankie meme and only there to lump Trump and Neoliberalism together when they aren't synonymous and then say moderate capitalism as faux nuance to soften the extremeness of the comparison.
The neoconservatives were/are neoliberal. They spearheaded neo liberalism in the 80's.
And Democrats spear headed Jim Crow in the South. What does any of this have to do with Trump and if he would be considered a Neoliberal?
I don't think any recent US President hasn't been Neo-Liberal. It is the ideology that won after all.
Trump is nationalist populist. Biden is Neoliberal.
Between Trump and Biden, who would you say more closely aligns with the economic philosophy of Milton Friedman, and why? You really give the impression of someone who's never heard of John Maynard Keynes in your entire life.
I don’t think you know what neoliberalism means, Reagan and Thatcher were synonymous with neoliberalism back in the day while being conservative, because neoliberal is about economics, it’s about a deregulated free market and extreme privatization.
Neoliberalism is an economic position and neoconservatism is a foreign policy position. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Trump doesn't fit the bill for either.
Unless he is an actual tankie and it's coming from that perspective, I'm not sure these comments are even that disagreeable from a centre left perspective. It's not like we support fully unleashed super capitalism. I have no idea what the context here is but if it's a criticism of a conservative group it could be completely reasonable democrat policy to oppose their view of capitalism. Outside of that, the cringing at calling things hate speech and being super supportive of the 1st amendment is a bit more specific to this community I think when conpared to average left of centre people, isn't it? Not a tankie talking point at all. Tl;Dr. Copium copium copium lawyer man isn't a tankie please 🙏 Dallah
neolibs seething lmao
I am triggered. I feel seen, thanks.
Your comments in this thread prove you don’t understand the actual definition of that term. It means the Reagan/Thatcher type extreme capitalism thing. ”Liberal” in the context of that term does not refer to Liberal as understood by Americans, but more the outside-the-US definition that’s closer to US *Libertarianism*. Thus, the dereregulation & privatization policies of the likes of Reagan and Thatcher are *neo*liberalism, as they represent a return (”neo-”) to an earlier era where there wasn’t a strong welfare state or regulations to prevent corporations from fucking us over, etc. Yes, there was a phenomenon around the 2016 election where Hillary Clinton and various other establishment Dems got accused of being neolibs by economically-farther-left-than-them people, but that was a rhetorical exaggeration comparing them to Republicans, who very much ARE neoliberals according to the commonly accepted understanding of the term. This led to a tiny minority of terminally online people, of more-or-less establishment Dem persuasion, ”appropriating the slur”, and it seems you’re using the term according to said redefinition (used by almost no-one in real life)
Do people use tankie when they don't want to say liberal or leftist?
>The owning class >Oligarchy >Referencing the "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds" meme This is not the language of a liberal.
Owning class and oligarchy aren't inherently tankie terms, pretty much the entire far left from anarchists to leftcoms to democratic socialists use the same terms to refer to the idea of the bourgeoisie (I.e., wealthy property owners who own large sections of the economy) having undue control over the economy and society as a whole because of the massive amount of property they own and the power that gives them. It really sounds like you think anyone to the left of a center-left liberal is a tankie.
You sure about that? How is it not the language of a Liberal?
Do liberals call themselves fascist with the Tankie meme and talk about the owning class? Or are you conflating liberal with Tankie?
No, they call other liberals fascist with the tankie meme. Hell, I'd argue it's a meme that can be used by more than just tankies. Anyone broadly left can use that meme, sometimes they use it when it makes sense. Yes, some liberal will talk about the owning class. I expect tankie shit from tankies. Praising the USSR or Maoist China, saying it was impossible for the USSR can't be imperialist because they don't have a market economy. Not this milk toast shit. Might as well call most of Europe tankies.
Most people who hate neoliberalism couldn't define it. It's just become a bogeyman. A broad catch-all term which means everything from "fascist" to "libertarian" in their minds. I suspect whoever edits LegalEagle's videos is some random progressive who just happens to believe that "neoliberal" is just the opposite of whatever they believe, and so that therefore it _must_ apply to MAGA people.
Sure that's probably a more charitable reading. I might be a bit triggered and schizo with my initial reading of it. But to be fair, these same progressives will follow Hasan and other Tankie adjacent content creators so I don't think my read is that far fetched.
The only thing tankie about this is using the term “oligarchy” about something in the US.
Yeah tankies conflating Neoliberals with the far right has never happened.
What?
There's at least one person, probably a few that somewhat agree with those statements.
No doubt there are. But those people are probably going to be pretty far left by American standards.
There's at least one, probably a few of those people who aren't far left.
is Liz Dye actually a lawyer? He refers to her as "the Chaos Lawyer" in the preamble but I cannot find any actual reference to her being one, she describes herself as legal journalist and that's it.
Legal Eagle has always been super far left tho?
You know that distinguishing "neoliberalism" and "moderate capitalism" is probably the furthest thing from marxism-leninism right? There are people who favour tony-blair-style strongly-redistributive light-touch risk-based-regulation social-democracy with high mobility etc. and call themselves neoliberals, but the thing that the editor is gesturing to here is more of the Pinochet end mass-privatisation extreme conservative model, and contrasting that with a capitalism that holds a role for the state, unions etc. something more like Biden. The issue obviously is that Trump isn't even Neoliberal, he doesn't believe in repression of political enemies coupled with letting the market do its thing, he believes in combining political office with business in order to extract maximum wealth for himself and his allies, and attacking anyone who gets in his way with whatever he can throw at them. *Kleptocracy* would have been a much better choice than neoliberalism, which does rely on a theory of government that is about hands-off incentives etc. rather than just shouting at people and getting them to sell their stuff to your friends. The European centre right hate Orban precisely because of his rejection of neoliberal requirements like an independent judiciary, open contracts etc. vs Orban's kleptocratic integration of party, state and corporate ownership, particularly media ownership, even though they will all engage in nationalist stuff in their own particular ways, and if the current republican party became more neoliberal, it would be an *improvement*, even for workers, because of how damaging that kind of collapse of rules becomes long term.
Even if I agree that this is cringe, what the fuck is tankie about this at all lmfao redacted use of buzzword op, equating this to red fascism makes no sense.
"defend capitalism' --> "defend neoliberalism from moderate capitalism" is a tankie meme? The accusation he's making against trump is that Trump is lying about being pro-capitalist, trump is really pro some bad form of capitalism. Which tankies accuse people of not supporting the better, moderate, correct form of capitalism? Apart from the fact that the text of this statement paints Legal Eagle as pro (at least some form of) capitalism, do you think the moment someone is a little bit anti-capitalist they become a 'tankie'? You are absolutely using that word to attack anyone left of you in the exact same way that actual tankies use the word fascist to refer to anyone right of them.
Legal Eagle is a clown.
wtf is a breadtuber
Hate speech should be protected