There was also an economic shock earlier that Richard Nixon actually solved very effectively by just freezing the economy. He froze all wages, interests rates and everything else for a few months and it worked very well. However many companies didn't like this heavy handed method.
Interesting thing about the "post-war consensus": it was basically just a shield against revolution, and to compete with the USSR. As the USSR became less of a threat, they could roll it all back.
which is why Social Democracies/ welfare states are simply neutering the workers in demanding more and better, only to be exploited again once rolled back in the name of profit. Capitalism baby.
@@anmolt3840051 Thatcherism is really one the most deluded Mindsets ive ever seen. I hope more People can get over the common Misconceptions about Capitalism and Socialism, Class-Struggle and the very Concept of Work and Unions and Freedom; Stuff fortunately all covered by "Some More News" and "Second Thought".
That last clip of Salvador Allende's bullet-shattered glasses really brings the point home about the violence of neoliberalism, and is a fitting way to end the video essay.
This video is perfectly timed. Just as the UK suffers to a government that is so devoted to a neoliberal ideology, that that it will subject the nation to the economic policies designed to ham-string developing countries. And wonder why the economy collapsed. Great stuff as always K&S, Thanks!
The only positive to the situation in the UK I see is that Johnson/Truss's cabinets are too stupid to hide what they're doing. The corruption and aid supplied millionaires has become so blatant that it can't be ignored. That and support for striking workers is finally balancing class consciousness. You don't see Mick Lynch falling into the trap of talking about issues using Thatcherite terminology. He just shoots straight about what workers need and deserve.
The least-cynical intuition I have on them is that their policies are exceedingly outdated. (I have no grounds for any concise thoughts because of my lack of economic understanding.)
@@amanofnoreputation2164 don't have to be an expert. Climate catastrophe is here. What worked in times of growth and 'unlimited' resources is brittle now, and slowly dieing in the past 14 years of perpetual crisis. How could neoliberalism prepare us? It's an anachronism now. Their ideas don't transform but preserve the structures of reign... If we are nothing but consumers, that system doesn't empower us to adapt. On economics, look up frustrated profs lecturing about pluralism in economics :) or Varoufakis. Anything New School. Unlearning Economics has videos in the inadequacy of current economic mainstream. Steve keen.
I'm tired of this assumption that the state's interests exist in a vacuum, like it's a singular entity that exists in opposition to everyone else. That a government trying to hold power is doing so only for itself. The government is an extension of society, anything it does is an extension of something already happening in society, it's only a question of who it's serving, which side of an issue is it taking. The Nazis, for example, served the interests of racist white people, racism wasn't just manifested out of nowhere by the government, the government's racism came from the people's racism. The problem with neo-liberals, is that they act like working class interests don't even exist. When the government serves the interests of religious fundamentalism, of capitalism, of imperialism, etc, they acknowledge that that's a product of society, that they're serving someone's interests. But when they serve working class interests, they're actually just serving their own interests, they're simply trying to grab power for its own sake. The assumption of neo-liberalism, is that workers aren't a class at all, that their interests are worth no consideration, that any government seeking to serve them is actually serving no one.
I noticed your final paragraph came up a lot in poorly made critiques of Corbyn before the 2019 election. They couldn’t take his policies at face value, they had to find out who he was “really” acting for. AKA they couldn’t even conceive that he WAS speaking for class interests anymore.
The government is an Weber bureaucratic structure that arose in Europe in modernity, no more and no less. Theses about some kind of group public interests are meaningless cringe metaphysics, nothing more. All that exists are concrete people with bureaucratic power backed by prisons, armies, psychiatry and schools.
Rowan Digital Works: "Against the classes and the masses: The American Legion, the American Federation of Labor, and Square Deal Americanism in the 1920s" [Gregory Hopely, Master's Thesis] *Abstract:* This work explores the ideological contributions of the American Legion and the American Federation of Labor to American conservatism in the 1920s. It argues that the two organizations shared a vision of what the author calls Square Deal Americanism, a loose conception of ideal citizenship that added a nationalist rejection of class to more traditional nativist Americanism.
I always think of the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism is the former says "the market is the cornerstone, and the question is how much the state should stay out of the way" and neoliberalism is "the market is GOD, and the purpose of the individual, society and the state is its worship"
I remember being asked to explain the difference on a test when I was around 16 years old. I believe I ended my answer with something like 'neoliberalism is what liberalism was before it was decided that 14 hour work days for children is maybe not a good look'. The difference is marginal and is mostly about what one dares to say out loud or not.
@Russ Ingram conditions changed materially with Thatcher and Reagan. The Post War Concession was just liberalism. There was a debate over how much the stare should involve itself with the market, and it reserved some power to act contrary to the profit motive of capitalism. Hence the Keynesian model of social safety nets for certain demographics. That contrary behavior is vital to the difference. The Thatcher ideology, NEO-liberalism was that the state was simply an extension of the market. All states in all reaches of the globe are simply regional management for capital, its just whether they are aware or not, and their compliance will be asserted by force. Sovereignty, ethnicity, nationality, race, creed, color, sexuality, and even the family unit all serve the market. There is no delineation, and thus the final form of capitalism emerged, where all facets of all identities of all things are simply commodities to be traded on the omnipresent market. That is the difference. The scale of the evolution encompasses the sum totality of life on this planet.
@Russ Ingram yes. I'm not defending any of it. Theres an ideological and material difference between life under liberalism and neoliberalism. Theyre not the same in some important ways.
i was born in the UK in '82 and my household was working class and labour. i've watched the identity of old industrial communities be forgotten and getting hoodwinked into hurting themselves. it's actully nice to here the truth again, this history is constantly being white washed.
My family lived in North England during the 70s, awful times I heard. One of my aunties is labour and can see that people are being treated poorly by the government. She worked in colleges and saw how clothing and general attitude changed in students throughout the years. My family used to make fun of her while I was growing up. My mum was completely brainwashed by the right falling for the us Vs them rhetoric. Looking from afar it's easy to see who's been duped even against their own family.
Absolutely. I found it especially frustrating how Thatcher’s dismantling of our industries ended up leading to the “red wall” votes for Johnson. Of course it’s not the sole reason, but everybody who ever said “Starbucks baristas don’t know real work, like I did at the mines, so they’re not really working class” on broadcast news vox pops has bought-into the industry-to-service pivot of the economy which Thatcher began. After all, work is work, and plenty of people recognise that service work in retail is one of the hardest service jobs. But everybody who finds themselves unable to empathise with today’s labour and union environment because it’s not clear-cut hard physical labour like it used to be, has basically allowed Thatcher to win. She destroyed their livelihoods, and her successors have spun their malaise as caused by younger “urban elites” rather than by the actual politicians and business-leaders at the top.
I was born in 42 into a middle class background but I never had any truck with Thatcher, finding her mistaken in virtually every policy and totally without empathy. Thatcherism/Reaganomics were what lead to the increasing disparity between the haves and havenots. My London flat, easily bought as a young primary school teacher is now out of the reach of two teachers combined. Deregulation has meant that those with big money are scooping up everything of value. I'm now comfortably off, but still angry about the lot of so many who instead of being helped are demonised. I see a slight improvement under Starmer should Labour take the next election, but he will not be addressing the huge underlying issues more's the pity.
Absolutely. We need to attack the framing, or we'll never win. The framing allows the right to dictate that the debate starts at a point where their conclusions are already inevitable, skipping past all the illogic and dishonesty required to get to that point. Allowing the opposition to dictate the framing of the argument is conceding the argument to them before it's even begun. If we contest the framing effectively and substitute our own, however, we undermine the basis for their policies, and they cannot retaliate in kind, because our framing, unlike theirs, is rooted in real human needs.
@@Amantducafe That's ideal. Irl a person may not have enough time to research and create content debunking arguments. Even if they did you would still run into the issue of marketing the rebuttle if you release the video. A person could do a google search during the convo but who knows what information will turn up and whether it is relevant as a counterpoint. What I'm saying is the number and facts answer is simply an ideal situation. People just aren't easily moved by facts and numbers either. It took decades to get to the point where we are right now with the climate crisis using that exact strategy. The OP was right. Attack the framing, stick to the reality of the situation. This is about control and power over other human beings.
Beware of those who will say that neoliberalism is un-ideological and solely based off mathematics. All economic systems are formed from an ideology. Whoever says that one system isn’t is a liar or incompetent. That’s what think tanks do: pretend there’s mathematical evidence for capitalism being “superior.” Superior in profitability, but not productivity or accessibility. The capitalist ideology prioritizes profit above all else. That isn’t mathematics. It’s ideology. Even worse it’s a shitty one.
Surprised you didn't include the clip of the old Scottish lady saying she wanted to put a stake through Maggie's heart. That pops up in almost every video about Thatcher.
I hope more People can get over the common Misconceptions about Capitalism and Socialism, and the very Concept of Work and Unions; Stuff fortunately all covered by "Some More News" and "Second Thought".
Agriculture's subsidies throughout the Thatcher era were mostly from the EEC/EU common agricultural policy - as part of the European project Westminster had only the influence of one country in the club on how much cash was sent to farmers - it certainly wasn't within Thatcher's power to change it without a massive argument with Europe.
Do you realise the hipocrisy of that statement when you compare that to labour and it's defense of coal mines, council houses, etc. The people that vote most labour get given the most from labour 😮😲😯
This added so much to my understanding of neoliberalism, I just realised as you pointed out, that while I have always rejected neoliberalism's rhetorics, I was tricked into believing that their rhetoric matched their policies.
It's really so easy to slip into accepting the rhetoric used by neoliberals. Between growing up in countries where it is the norm and seeing how their ideas contradict themselves it can feel like it should be an easy battle to point out the flaws in the ideals of a free market, to look at the numbers and show how it hurts people. But you're absolutely right, it's more important that we reject these fundamentals in the first place.
It's not a 'free market' when the state props up inefficient industry, bans the importation of cheaper foreign products and regulates which producers can sell their products to certain customers. To observe a free market one must look to 19th century America; a place in which the average standard of living increased faster than any other place, at any other time.
@@lmy2366 Citation, please. 19th century America relied on a slave population that accounted for a tenth of the nation's whole population, massive genocides were still taking place in the west, and the nascent production and fossil fuel industries killed and injured more people than ever before or since.
@@lmy2366 So just the monopolies and poor labour practises while still benefiting from those other things if not being directly involved. You can't disconnect those things; those regions of the US wouldn't have seen as much prosperity without the harm done elsewhere, and they still relied on exploitative and harmful systems that left many people even in the region in a much worse place. Read up on how immigrant and freeman labour was treated in those areas.
Is that actually worse? Worse AT it, yes, but perhaps not worse FOR you? Not having any idea how this shit actually works could limit the damage she can cause.
@@abdulmasaiev9024 Or she can see the big, red glaring button with the words 'DO NOT PRESS' labelled over it and simply went "hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I press it." and then she'd outright press the damn thing without talking to anybody. Just like she did with this self-destructive mini-budget. It's the same way I can calmly drive 120 km/h on a suitable motorway without blinking, but add one driver who fancies themselves an amateur racer, and I'll slow the heck down. One simply has no idea what an overconfident amateur thinks they can do.
@@Marewig Well she might press the button, but on the other hand she won't be able to figure out a way to convince people that it's Good Actually that she did. Seems better than someone who has the will and ability to not only press the button and spin it as a positive, but design more buttons of her own.
@@abdulmasaiev9024 Not quite, because anyone smart enough would know how freaking stupid it is to press it. It's like Brexit. Anyone who can see read the economy's current accounts, or know how the standardisation of EU regulations and free flow of goods benefits everyone, including large companies and investment banks. That ignorant fool, on the other hand, is firmly convinced in their own righteousness, reality be damned.
I think you really nailed it, people need to learn how to see beyond the discourse and look at what is done, aka, rejecting idealism and embracing materialism
Our society is often criticized as materialistic, and yet it has such little respect for material that it seems determined to turn as much of it as possible into refuse and measures success in terms of waste.
I hope more People can get over the common Misconceptions about Capitalism and Socialism, Class-Struggle and the very Concept of Work and Unions and Freedom; Stuff fortunately all covered by "Some More News" and "Second Thought".
Incredible video, even if there is a hell and Thatcher is burning in it it’s still not enough to compensate for the damage that she has done. I get really tired of living in this world that is so heavily capitalist and I’m not sure how much longer I can do it or if I have the strength to try and do anything about it, but I really appreciate that there are people like you making videos like this and educating people. So yeah, thanks🙏
If you are so tired of living in a world so heavily capitalist then just move to China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, or go to post soviet countries and see how other ideologies fare.
When you mentioned the common misconception that the state and the free market are in diametric opposition--and that increasing the powers of one supposedly curtails the other--it reminded me of when I was much younger and ignorant; I had understood the "free market" was bad, but thought its problems were for lack of the state's strength: accepting a false premise somewhat like in the manner of Thatcher's opposition as mentioned I suppose. Also, not that you didnt basically explain these points about the state, but I think it's worth mentioning the theoretical underpinning too: states cannot exist without class contradictions; this not only dispells the aforementioned 'opposition' of a capitalist state against the "free market" (i.e. capitalist relations), but tells us the latter cannot persist without the former. Hence why the all the ends of a neoliberal programme could not have been made in any other way but the expansion of state functions necessary to upholding capitalist relations. Anyhow loving the vids, found you recently by binging the korra review series and finally felt like I wasnt insane for thinking the show was deeply problematic lol
Neoliberalism on paper, fascism in practice. I was preparing to have to see statistics to understand how terrible Thatcher was, but in reality, I just had to know she lied.
@@johkupohkuxd1697 she subsidized more property to private owners (part neoliberalism). And when the workers protested, she suppressed labor unionization via the (police) state (part fascism).
@@johkupohkuxd1697if you truthfully look at the start of many neoliberal regimes in countries you’ll find that they pushed the same policies and economic agendas as fascism, it just uses less nationalism. Instead of suppressing labor movements for the good of the German people you do it for the good of the market, instead of giving subsidies to German business owners for the good of the German people you do it for the good of the market. It’s austerity fascism. It may not be as cryptic and delusional as fascism but it still pushes the same economic policies that fascists push. Remember fascism wasn’t ALL about race science and building myths, it had a practical side too. An economic side
@@KayAndSkittles yeah having watched a few more videos and seeing the geotag in your Twitter I gathered that 😅 fair play being in liverpool though, anyone with a non scouse accent usually isnt met too well
@@nataschavisser573 said it the one who believes in communist utopia free market capitalism had proven to be the best economic model capitalist countries in general are the wealthiest countries on the planet
@@basilmagnanimous7011 stopping the economic growth of the the third world because of some first word degenerates who can compete is both stupid and evil. Every body should have the chance to compete in the free market
Neoliberalism seems to take on a more idealistic and utopian view of capitalism. In contrast, the classical liberal view acknowledges that the free market is not perfect, but that it is the best we have. Therefore, the scope of government should be limited to allow for more personal freedom.
It depends on a lot of factors there is no one singular perspective as she pitted ( literally & figuratively) different working class areas against each other. In the North & Scotland especially around pit area’s ( plus other areas particularly Liverpool)that supported the 1984 strike she is mostly hated by those who grew up under her policy’s, were in unions & had jobs she decimated. Those boomers who benefited from the post war consciouses who were working class but did well & bought there own homes tend to have mixed feelings or even support her education level plays a part in this as well, hence the destruction of decent education for the working class, I was one of last generation of council estate young people who benefited from cheap higher education at university. From what I know in the south there were pockets of the working class against her but her policies seemed weighted towards the South unless you were a minority. I am Northern from a mining area in Yorkshire that went out on strike for a year, people were crushed when it failed. A miner killed himself by pouring petrol over himself in his bath & lighting a match, there were rumours she deployed para’s amongst riot police in strong union areas who would beat up striking miners. I spent most the 1980’s afterwards with my family moving from city to a different area to find decent work which he eventually did in the Northeast. But English media is relentlessly pro Tory & pro Neo-liberal so unless people are educated or suffered though her policies you will get very different views.
for anyone else interested and wanting to read more, I absolutely recommend Foucault's 'Birth of Biopolitics' where he systematically explains the history of neoliberalism and dismantles it into the disciplining force that it is
An important element of Right to Buy (the legislation by which UK government housing was sold off cheap) is that it didn't *just* create Tory voters in the form of newly minted homeowners. It also reduced government housing stock, because councils (local government) were obliged to sell houses for less than it cost to build them and give the one-time revenue generated to central government. In theory a portion of the "profits" could be put towards new building, but using that mechanism would have been a cash-sink in net, so no council did. Right to Buy meant that any new housing stock built would also be vulnerable to being sold off for less-than-cost, creating an impossible spiral for any council trying to keep pace. The consequence of selling cut-price property to Britain's poor while simultaneously reducing the stock of social housing is entirely unsurprising if you think about it even for a second. A huge slice of former public housing is now in private hands, not as homes owned by those who live in them but as rental properties. With the housing safety net weakened many are forced to rent from private landlords - often the exact same housing that was their lot in the 70s and 80s, but more expensive and less well maintained. There was even a boom in buy-to-let mortgages in the early 2000s: middle class families getting on the rent-seeking ladder to make a nest egg for their kids. Legislation has been tightened a bit since, but the reality for many in the UK is still that they'll never get on the 'housing ladder' (a problematic concept in itself) because a giant chunk of their income goes on paying off someone else's mortgage on the building they live in.
Yeah it was stupid. They could have done some discount and then reused the money to build new and to save a lot of local industries - people need houses AND jobs.
Growing up in the 90'sin Uruguay (a country in South America who's economy has historically depended on other bigger countries) I heard this phrase many times regarding noe-liberalism: "The market is 'open' for them, but not for us. They can come as well us their products no problem, but you try to export products to them, and they will tax you out of competition."
As far as I know, in the years before Tatcher was elected, the country was paralyzed by strikes and economic malaise (I’m not british in any way, this is what I studied and read in my own). Why did the unions specifically, in the sources I read, seemed to be the main problem? Why did they went from being necessary to be perceived as an obstacle? And what could have been another way of solving the country’s economic problems? I do not even pretend I undertand correctly what I casually read, nor I am expert in British economic history ( I don’t even speak english as my first language 😁🇮🇹), but I’d really like a genuine opinion about that. Thanks
Why the unions went from necessary to an obstacle: in the aftermath of WW2, the British economy was destroyed. At the same time, millions of ordinary workers in the UK had just been trained as a vast army, to work together and use armed force against a foe. In short, the capitalists and the state were afraid that if they didn't cooperate with trade unions, they faced the prospect of armed revolution. And in order to keep their heirarchy functioning they needed the economy to function- thus they were forced to play ball with the unions and incorporate workers into the decision-making process, at least somewhat. But they were always searching for a way to return to their previous position of total dominance- and with the 1970s doldrums of the world economy, there was an opportunity to disrupt the workers' position of power. That's what Thatcherism was all about- a variety of political and economic techniques to break trade union power and get capitalists back into a position of unquestioned superiority
You're largely correct!! The dreadful Labour governments of the 1970s God Almighty! Everyone was poor, the Unions exploited the situation to get better wages as low, lots of bad loss making nationalised industries and unemployment. To call what MT did NL ???? Some of it was rescue pure and simple! Later on it was ideological poop!
While deliberate deception in how subsidies were categorized may be an especially egregious example of the inherent contradictions of neoliberalism, the issue is a lot more fundamental than that. If neoliberalism claims to believe in a free market that will function efficiently without state interference, that is plainly absurd. But my understanding has always been that neoliberal doctrine explicitly asserted the role of the state in promoting the "free market," i.e., supporting and expanding privately-owned profit-seeking enterprises in every sector of society, while reducing the role of state-owned services as much as possible. In other words, neoliberalism is not libertarianism. Is that incorrect?
Mostly correct. Neoliberalism is most certainly not libertarianism! But there's another layer of subterfuge here. Thatcher's government for example made a point of promoting how much subsidies were decreasing under their leadership (a lie, as my video goes into). The fact that they went to such great lengths to make that appear to be true suggests an intention (and this is a pattern we see with Reagan and subsequent leaders in the US and UK) of APPEARING to be significantly more libertarian than they are. Neoliberal thinkers have certainly described the role of the state in the way you describe but it's often much more euphemistic, and in the rhetoric of neoliberal politicians they don't tend to discuss how exactly the state goes about doing that, which was a big part of what I wanted to get at in this video. A lot of academic discussion of neoliberalism (Stiglitz was just one example of many) treats neoliberalism as if it is effectively adjacent to libertarianism, which is also part of the problem. The other part of the problem of course is that capitalist libertarianism isn't real and is more or less a meme but that's another story!
Thanks for making this! Was a good watch! One thing I would change is that the post-war consensus was more about stopping the spread of communism than preventing another world war. How would the UK government providing for it’s citizens stop imperialism? That sounds more like the stated purpose of the Marshall plan (though this too was greatly about stopping communism).
In my video I say that the post-war consensus was largely to stop the social unrest that came after ww1 which was precisely the fear of a working class uprising, not a world war. Apologies if I was unclear on that point.
Anatoly Chubais, icon of neoliberalism in Russia and the most hated man there, directly responsible for privatization, said: That motivation for privatization was political than economic. He was agree to sell to private hands state enterprises by any price - expensive, cheap, free and even giving additional pay. The goal was, quote - to destroy communism. Each privatized factory was a nail into its coffin
I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to hear another leftist who doesn't fall for the neoliberal/capitalist lie of the free market and small government. I've been leftist for many years now, and an anarchist for a bit over 2 years, and about 2 years ago, I was under the same spell of the capitalist lie about capitalism and the status quo being a free market, and about small government etc. My dip into anarchist philosophy led me to an interesting line of theory that ties into an ideology that calls itself "left wing market anarchism", or "free market socialism". At first I was very confused cuz the capitalist conditioning still had that effect on me of associating the words "free market" with capitalism. I certainly so have my own criticism of the ideology now that I know more, especially about its lack of imagination about non-market systems that are very much liberating, as well as about its radical pro-market rhetoric that at times leavs it sounding ancap-ish. But the theory taught me something very useful. Capitalism and the state have a deep history together that is hidden to most of us because capitalism has become so naturalised (human nature bullshit etc). The true history is that capitalism is made by the state, by its colonialism, and its imperialism, starting back in the middle ages, after the decline of feudalism, with kings stealing and reappropriating the commons from regular people and just giving it to wealthy aristocrats, thereby creating a landed gentry and landlord class, by restricting peasant and worker movement, by forcefully reappropriating working class and oppressed people's organisations like unions or mutual aid groups as institutions or junior partners of either state or capital and their bureaucracy, like the welfare state, or otherwise crushing them. By solidifying monopolies through regulatory bodies and artificial impositions like intellectual property, generous subsidies and I can go on and on and on... it's one long history of coercion and state violence... but it's largely forgotten because the events of the 20th century made it so the state started to more lean into the form of a more paternalistic protector, and reframing itself as a buffer between capital and the people's wellbeing out of necessity to curb the risk of revolution by giving some concessions that also doubled as additional tools of control, like the aforementioned welfare state. The left wing market anarchists in question thus take on a very strongly socialist, pro-labour, anti-business and anti-capitalist stance. And they tie all this analysis and more into a discussion of how a hypothetical society where the state acts purely for the benefit of the people rather than some sort of rulling class is all but impossible. I am not one of these left market anarchists, I see myself as closer to anarcho-communism or some form of anarchism without adjectives, but I have a lot of respect for them for what they taught me. But so many conservatives, neoliberals, and self-proclaimed right "libertarians" have come to view the underlying capitalist society as a natural default, either completely unaware or willing to ignore the centuries of violence and coercion, much of which is very statist in origin, that created it in the first place. And just as you said, the result is that they can claim to be for small government and for a free market just because... essentially... they want to get rid of that buffer, of that state paternalism and protection, those concessions that were a necessity for capitalists and the state to take during the first 2/3 of the 20th century so they would not risk total collapse and revolution in return for some crumbs returned to the people. And then they actually keep or enhance all the aspects of the state that are about suppression and violence, but never refer to it. Even right libertarians seem more keen to complain about regulations the see as protecting people whom they see as too weak and undeserving (the working class, unions, the poor, immigrants, other races and ethnicities, LGBTQ people and more) and regulations that actually serve as an obstacle to the rich and powerful, but are all too happy to ignore the regulations and state actions that do the opposite, like subsidies to big business unless maybe it's affecting them personally, or they at best pay lip service to it when you remind them of how the state keeps down the common man but then forget about it later. It's this exact mindset. They adore the state as an arbitor of law and order, as a suppressor and enforcer that keeps the working class and marginalized people down, and keep their trade and capitalist empire afloat, and are only "small-government" or "free market" when they see the state as acting in any way paternalistically towards those groups, or as an obstacle to their ambitions.
This is a fantastic video, and creates an interesting bridge between neoliberal ideology and concentrated power in the marketplace and society at large. If you haven't already I would recommend reading Nitzan and Bichler's Capital as Power. They demonstrate a fantastic economic argument that capitalist profit is actually the result of a corporation's power in the market, however, they don't pair it with a political analysis about neoliberal governments or austerity politics. This video largely completes that missing link and I'd recommend you pick the book up as it would be an amazing magnum opus of a video to tie the concepts together. Great content as always
Also, let's not forget the effect of Ayn Rand and her Objectivism drivel had on Thatcher, Reagan and the subsequent crop of contemporary Thatcher-Reagan cosplayers.
From what I hear coming out of the UK, it sounds like an "incurious media" is still an issue there. Well, probably most of the problems discussed here are still an issue there
Absolutely. Whether the news organisation is pro or against the current government, they still always repeat official lines and statements with very little deeper analysis.
8:24 omg that's Christian Lindner, Germany's Treasury secretary and market liberal, right now. Shadow Budget after Shadow Budget while insisting on a balanced budget ideology.
The funny thing is of course, that this ideology that thatcher came up with is in no way new. It is, in fact, over a century old, and the Conservatives *tried* it during the 1840s to solve a particular issue in Ireland. It caused a famine so devastating, and a region so unstable, that the population of Ireland has not recovered to this day. It also of couorse, happened in Bengali in modern day India, when they stripped the people of their surplus in times of famine, which resulted in even more devastation, with a death toll so atastrophic it would make you think I was speaking of the Holodomor. This is of course, not to accept the premise, but to note that we know what happens when the premise of a free market is accepted, and it is a plague upon the people, even if the land continues to thrive.
This video is really good. A lot of the video essays I watch do little more than to confirm or reinforce beliefs that I already hold, but here I actually learned something new. I will definitely bring this up the next time I confront some neoliberal doofus.
The only reason the free market is supposed to be loved is its implied ability at maintaining unbiased meritocracy. But since it's a market, as opposed to an actual forum, those that enter with the most money become the most impowered participants. What we were sold is nothing short of RichDaddysboyonomics. You are empowered above all others for having been born in the right mansion.
THANK YOU! Not only is this brilliant corrector-explainer, but it gets at the heart of what I've been saying for a while. The mystical capacity for self-correction (aka the invisible hand) touted by neoliberals (and libertarian pseudo-intellectuals and fauxconomists) is indistinguishable from an invocation of some god or other (which is hilarious, given how many libertarians are atheists). It is not an explanation of what happens, it's another way of describing the phenomenon and description is not explanation. As for the ideology side, the Republicans have got it down to a fine art: make elections about how ideologically pure you are, and once in power you can do what you want behind closed doors, out of sight of the electorate. See also ALEC and the proliferation of think tanks working day and night to find ways to pleasingly package voters' self-annihilation.
14:17 I'm pretty sure Marx wrote about how the state could take the role of the bourgeois in capitalism. Merely having state owned industry isn't enough to achieve communism.
I was born in 1982 and raised in a 'middle class' home with parents of the 'boomer' generation. My dad was an accountant (of course he was) and an ardent Tory voter. To this day he sights Thatcher as 'the best PM the country ever had'. Sure why wouldn't he? He bought his first house for £2.50 (maybe) on his salary alone while my mum looked after us. As house prices soared their wealth increased (through no effort of their own) and the new markets that Tech brought fed into his sector and he earned good money. He was completely solitary in his career cycle and had no understanding of a unionised work force. He was completely detached from the working classes who were having their lives and communities ripped apart during this period - so sure, why should it bother him? He had a Jaguar on the driveway. Everything was fine. I love my dad to the core but now at 40 (and many years before) I know he was absolutely wrong. He bet his own individual growth at the expense of others and worse, future generations (his children, his grandchildren). I love him but that we exist at economical and societal polar opposites, I often struggle. At least we agree on football ❤️
@@autoteleology not sure what you mean about the grift trickling down to me? We're different because I see the world differently. I see the demonstrable damage caused by growing wealth inequality, I'm not blinkered to it all. I understand solidarity amongst working people. I work in a blue colour unionised job and see the overwhelming benefits that it brings the work force. We are very different people
But it does exist it might not be a different mode of production or a new development of capitalism (like imperialism for Lenin) but is the rationalization of capital by its ideologues, the "ideal" realm of liberal ideas of today if you put it bluntly
It's a political project that focuses on obfuscating the conflicting interests of employers and employees. It also claims to be promoting personal responsibility while undermining workers' legal rights and ideological ability to have political agency.
Pretty much what I already knew stripping workers regulation and rights and massive bailouts and subsidies in the hands or already rich corporations and shareholders when the free capitalist market breaks down which it always does
This is fantastic. Very few people in Britain actually understand what Thatcher did and why it was wrong. Apart from the North esp Liverpool. In the South of England most adults are just mini Thatchers whether it's against their own interests or not.
Most northern mining areas particularly parts of Yorkshire understood they went on strike for a year in 1984 add wales plus Scotland to the list as well.
Amazing video as per usual. How do you do all this research. I would love to do projects like this for university but often find the research phase as draining and often dead ends. You you have a strategy or main way of researching?
Making use of whatever resources your university library has available or even google scholar is a great way to get started (that's probably obvious) but my main method is once I find an interesting and inciteful piece I start following their footnotes to the works they cite, even if it's citing it to attack it because then you start to get a feel for the academic discourse around a topic. For me researching is just as much about figuring out how people misrepresent history as it is about understanding the history itself. Research should feel a bit like a conversation!
@@KayAndSkittles Sorry your evil communist ideology does not work you are just repeating keynesian nonsense evry free market economy works better than kaynsiean economy . overall Tacher redused government spending let as not forget how bad was Britain during the 70s
In a similar vein, I really like pointing out that austerity is an authoritarian strategy that can only be realized through violence - simply flipping the common rhetoric; usually works to disorient the more casual libs
I would like to offer a comment, I would very much like to hear your opinion about Dragon Age, especially the Qunari, a race of beings that exist in that universe and that have a leftist ideology
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
As soon as you mentioned the difference between the rhetoric of neoliberalism and its actual policies, I knew that this was going to be excellent.
I knew it from the intro 🤣🤣
There was also an economic shock earlier that Richard Nixon actually solved very effectively by just freezing the economy. He froze all wages, interests rates and everything else for a few months and it worked very well. However many companies didn't like this heavy handed method.
Interesting thing about the "post-war consensus": it was basically just a shield against revolution, and to compete with the USSR. As the USSR became less of a threat, they could roll it all back.
Just scrolled through here. Was exactly what I commented lol
Exactly
which is why Social Democracies/ welfare states are simply neutering the workers in demanding more and better, only to be exploited again once rolled back in the name of profit. Capitalism baby.
@@anmolt3840051 Thatcherism is really one the most deluded Mindsets ive ever seen.
I hope more People can get over the common Misconceptions
about Capitalism and Socialism, Class-Struggle and the very
Concept of Work and Unions and Freedom;
Stuff fortunately all covered by "Some More News" and "Second Thought".
@@loturzelrestaurant Both are absolutely banger channels.
That last clip of Salvador Allende's bullet-shattered glasses really brings the point home about the violence of neoliberalism, and is a fitting way to end the video essay.
Nah. Allende was steering Chile toward deeper poverty (as seen in Venezuela). Pinochet was right.
@@jimtaylor294 Allende and Maduro couldn't/can't control US reactionary violence
This video is perfectly timed. Just as the UK suffers to a government that is so devoted to a neoliberal ideology, that that it will subject the nation to the economic policies designed to ham-string developing countries. And wonder why the economy collapsed.
Great stuff as always K&S, Thanks!
This!
The only positive to the situation in the UK I see is that Johnson/Truss's cabinets are too stupid to hide what they're doing. The corruption and aid supplied millionaires has become so blatant that it can't be ignored.
That and support for striking workers is finally balancing class consciousness. You don't see Mick Lynch falling into the trap of talking about issues using Thatcherite terminology. He just shoots straight about what workers need and deserve.
The least-cynical intuition I have on them is that their policies are exceedingly outdated. (I have no grounds for any concise thoughts because of my lack of economic understanding.)
@@amanofnoreputation2164 don't have to be an expert. Climate catastrophe is here. What worked in times of growth and 'unlimited' resources is brittle now, and slowly dieing in the past 14 years of perpetual crisis.
How could neoliberalism prepare us? It's an anachronism now. Their ideas don't transform but preserve the structures of reign...
If we are nothing but consumers, that system doesn't empower us to adapt.
On economics, look up frustrated profs lecturing about pluralism in economics :) or Varoufakis. Anything New School.
Unlearning Economics has videos in the inadequacy of current economic mainstream.
Steve keen.
truss and kwarteng are driving me mad
I'm tired of this assumption that the state's interests exist in a vacuum, like it's a singular entity that exists in opposition to everyone else. That a government trying to hold power is doing so only for itself.
The government is an extension of society, anything it does is an extension of something already happening in society, it's only a question of who it's serving, which side of an issue is it taking. The Nazis, for example, served the interests of racist white people, racism wasn't just manifested out of nowhere by the government, the government's racism came from the people's racism.
The problem with neo-liberals, is that they act like working class interests don't even exist. When the government serves the interests of religious fundamentalism, of capitalism, of imperialism, etc, they acknowledge that that's a product of society, that they're serving someone's interests. But when they serve working class interests, they're actually just serving their own interests, they're simply trying to grab power for its own sake.
The assumption of neo-liberalism, is that workers aren't a class at all, that their interests are worth no consideration, that any government seeking to serve them is actually serving no one.
I noticed your final paragraph came up a lot in poorly made critiques of Corbyn before the 2019 election. They couldn’t take his policies at face value, they had to find out who he was “really” acting for. AKA they couldn’t even conceive that he WAS speaking for class interests anymore.
The government is an Weber bureaucratic structure that arose in Europe in modernity, no more and no less. Theses about some kind of group public interests are meaningless cringe metaphysics, nothing more. All that exists are concrete people with bureaucratic power backed by prisons, armies, psychiatry and schools.
Rowan Digital Works:
"Against the classes and the masses: The American Legion, the American Federation of Labor, and Square Deal Americanism in the 1920s"
[Gregory Hopely, Master's Thesis]
*Abstract:*
This work explores the ideological contributions of the American Legion and the American Federation of Labor to American conservatism in the 1920s. It argues that the two organizations shared a vision of what the author calls Square Deal Americanism, a loose conception of ideal citizenship that added a nationalist rejection of class to more traditional nativist Americanism.
Honey wake up Kay and Skittles just uploaded
He typed, to his fictional wife living in the Metaverse.
@@solidaritytime3650 only metaironically
@@jefsoete9793 Jreg?
@@solidaritytime3650 😳
@@jefsoete9793 Jreg.
I always think of the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism is the former says "the market is the cornerstone, and the question is how much the state should stay out of the way" and neoliberalism is "the market is GOD, and the purpose of the individual, society and the state is its worship"
I remember being asked to explain the difference on a test when I was around 16 years old. I believe I ended my answer with something like 'neoliberalism is what liberalism was before it was decided that 14 hour work days for children is maybe not a good look'. The difference is marginal and is mostly about what one dares to say out loud or not.
@Russ Ingram conditions changed materially with Thatcher and Reagan. The Post War Concession was just liberalism. There was a debate over how much the stare should involve itself with the market, and it reserved some power to act contrary to the profit motive of capitalism. Hence the Keynesian model of social safety nets for certain demographics. That contrary behavior is vital to the difference.
The Thatcher ideology, NEO-liberalism was that the state was simply an extension of the market. All states in all reaches of the globe are simply regional management for capital, its just whether they are aware or not, and their compliance will be asserted by force. Sovereignty, ethnicity, nationality, race, creed, color, sexuality, and even the family unit all serve the market. There is no delineation, and thus the final form of capitalism emerged, where all facets of all identities of all things are simply commodities to be traded on the omnipresent market.
That is the difference. The scale of the evolution encompasses the sum totality of life on this planet.
@Russ Ingram yes. I'm not defending any of it. Theres an ideological and material difference between life under liberalism and neoliberalism. Theyre not the same in some important ways.
@@FuzzyKittenBoots love it
@Russ Ingram keep believing in your Communist nonsense
i was born in the UK in '82 and my household was working class and labour. i've watched the identity of old industrial communities be forgotten and getting hoodwinked into hurting themselves.
it's actully nice to here the truth again, this history is constantly being white washed.
My family lived in North England during the 70s, awful times I heard. One of my aunties is labour and can see that people are being treated poorly by the government. She worked in colleges and saw how clothing and general attitude changed in students throughout the years. My family used to make fun of her while I was growing up. My mum was completely brainwashed by the right falling for the us Vs them rhetoric. Looking from afar it's easy to see who's been duped even against their own family.
Absolutely. I found it especially frustrating how Thatcher’s dismantling of our industries ended up leading to the “red wall” votes for Johnson.
Of course it’s not the sole reason, but everybody who ever said “Starbucks baristas don’t know real work, like I did at the mines, so they’re not really working class” on broadcast news vox pops has bought-into the industry-to-service pivot of the economy which Thatcher began.
After all, work is work, and plenty of people recognise that service work in retail is one of the hardest service jobs. But everybody who finds themselves unable to empathise with today’s labour and union environment because it’s not clear-cut hard physical labour like it used to be, has basically allowed Thatcher to win. She destroyed their livelihoods, and her successors have spun their malaise as caused by younger “urban elites” rather than by the actual politicians and business-leaders at the top.
I was born in 42 into a middle class background but I never had any truck with Thatcher, finding her mistaken in virtually every policy and totally without empathy. Thatcherism/Reaganomics were what lead to the increasing disparity between the haves and havenots. My London flat, easily bought as a young primary school teacher is now out of the reach of two teachers combined. Deregulation has meant that those with big money are scooping up everything of value. I'm now comfortably off, but still angry about the lot of so many who instead of being helped are demonised. I see a slight improvement under Starmer should Labour take the next election, but he will not be addressing the huge underlying issues more's the pity.
@@tonybennett4159 👏 exactly
Absolutely. We need to attack the framing, or we'll never win. The framing allows the right to dictate that the debate starts at a point where their conclusions are already inevitable, skipping past all the illogic and dishonesty required to get to that point. Allowing the opposition to dictate the framing of the argument is conceding the argument to them before it's even begun. If we contest the framing effectively and substitute our own, however, we undermine the basis for their policies, and they cannot retaliate in kind, because our framing, unlike theirs, is rooted in real human needs.
Or just point out the facts. Instead of "he/she said this" show the numbers of how it failed, lied or they contradicted themselves just like Kay did.
@@Amantducafe That's ideal. Irl a person may not have enough time to research and create content debunking arguments. Even if they did you would still run into the issue of marketing the rebuttle if you release the video. A person could do a google search during the convo but who knows what information will turn up and whether it is relevant as a counterpoint.
What I'm saying is the number and facts answer is simply an ideal situation. People just aren't easily moved by facts and numbers either. It took decades to get to the point where we are right now with the climate crisis using that exact strategy.
The OP was right. Attack the framing, stick to the reality of the situation. This is about control and power over other human beings.
Beware of those who will say that neoliberalism is un-ideological and solely based off mathematics. All economic systems are formed from an ideology. Whoever says that one system isn’t is a liar or incompetent. That’s what think tanks do: pretend there’s mathematical evidence for capitalism being “superior.” Superior in profitability, but not productivity or accessibility. The capitalist ideology prioritizes profit above all else. That isn’t mathematics. It’s ideology. Even worse it’s a shitty one.
I call that "to take control of the narrative".
I don't remember where I heard it first, but I definitely heard it from someone.
How about a dark room with one hammer and the body of government given a free for all on which bill should be on the floor.
Surprised you didn't include the clip of the old Scottish lady saying she wanted to put a stake through Maggie's heart. That pops up in almost every video about Thatcher.
I hope more People can get over the common Misconceptions
about Capitalism and Socialism, and the very
Concept of Work and Unions;
Stuff fortunately all covered by "Some More News" and "Second Thought".
she's a legend!
@@comandantedubois2397 legendary psychopath ❤️
Scots smarter than their southern neighbours, nothing really new here.
They subsidized farmers because in the UK, they consistently vote Tory. "Gifts for friends, for everyone else, the law"
Agriculture's subsidies throughout the Thatcher era were mostly from the EEC/EU common agricultural policy - as part of the European project Westminster had only the influence of one country in the club on how much cash was sent to farmers - it certainly wasn't within Thatcher's power to change it without a massive argument with Europe.
Do you realise the hipocrisy of that statement when you compare that to labour and it's defense of coal mines, council houses, etc. The people that vote most labour get given the most from labour 😮😲😯
Thatcher also didn't privitize the railroads because she knew very well that running trains to remote farming villages is extremely unprofitable.
This added so much to my understanding of neoliberalism, I just realised as you pointed out, that while I have always rejected neoliberalism's rhetorics, I was tricked into believing that their rhetoric matched their policies.
It's really so easy to slip into accepting the rhetoric used by neoliberals. Between growing up in countries where it is the norm and seeing how their ideas contradict themselves it can feel like it should be an easy battle to point out the flaws in the ideals of a free market, to look at the numbers and show how it hurts people. But you're absolutely right, it's more important that we reject these fundamentals in the first place.
Thatcherism is really one the most deluded Mindsets ive ever seen.
It's not a 'free market' when the state props up inefficient industry, bans the importation of cheaper foreign products and regulates which producers can sell their products to certain customers. To observe a free market one must look to 19th century America; a place in which the average standard of living increased faster than any other place, at any other time.
@@lmy2366 Citation, please. 19th century America relied on a slave population that accounted for a tenth of the nation's whole population, massive genocides were still taking place in the west, and the nascent production and fossil fuel industries killed and injured more people than ever before or since.
@@user-xsn5ozskwg Indeed the claim was too general. Specifically Northeast and Midwestern United States.
@@lmy2366 So just the monopolies and poor labour practises while still benefiting from those other things if not being directly involved. You can't disconnect those things; those regions of the US wouldn't have seen as much prosperity without the harm done elsewhere, and they still relied on exploitative and harmful systems that left many people even in the region in a much worse place. Read up on how immigrant and freeman labour was treated in those areas.
This is why I say Truss is worse than Thatcher, she's cosplaying the *idea* of Thatcher, but has no idea how any of this shit actually works.
Yeah. Thatcher might be neoliberal, but Truss is straight up cargo cult economics.
Is that actually worse? Worse AT it, yes, but perhaps not worse FOR you? Not having any idea how this shit actually works could limit the damage she can cause.
@@abdulmasaiev9024 Or she can see the big, red glaring button with the words 'DO NOT PRESS' labelled over it and simply went "hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I press it." and then she'd outright press the damn thing without talking to anybody. Just like she did with this self-destructive mini-budget.
It's the same way I can calmly drive 120 km/h on a suitable motorway without blinking, but add one driver who fancies themselves an amateur racer, and I'll slow the heck down. One simply has no idea what an overconfident amateur thinks they can do.
@@Marewig Well she might press the button, but on the other hand she won't be able to figure out a way to convince people that it's Good Actually that she did. Seems better than someone who has the will and ability to not only press the button and spin it as a positive, but design more buttons of her own.
@@abdulmasaiev9024 Not quite, because anyone smart enough would know how freaking stupid it is to press it. It's like Brexit. Anyone who can see read the economy's current accounts, or know how the standardisation of EU regulations and free flow of goods benefits everyone, including large companies and investment banks.
That ignorant fool, on the other hand, is firmly convinced in their own righteousness, reality be damned.
I think you really nailed it, people need to learn how to see beyond the discourse and look at what is done, aka, rejecting idealism and embracing materialism
Our society is often criticized as materialistic, and yet it has such little respect for material that it seems determined to turn as much of it as possible into refuse and measures success in terms of waste.
I hope more People can get over the common Misconceptions
about Capitalism and Socialism, Class-Struggle and the very
Concept of Work and Unions and Freedom;
Stuff fortunately all covered by "Some More News" and "Second Thought".
Incredible video, even if there is a hell and Thatcher is burning in it it’s still not enough to compensate for the damage that she has done.
I get really tired of living in this world that is so heavily capitalist and I’m not sure how much longer I can do it or if I have the strength to try and do anything about it, but I really appreciate that there are people like you making videos like this and educating people. So yeah, thanks🙏
So long as there is labour there is hope, comrade
@@comandantedubois2397 😂, you westerners are so naive, enjoy forced labour camps and famines after you win your revolution.
If you are so tired of living in a world so heavily capitalist then just move to China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, or go to post soviet countries and see how other ideologies fare.
haven't exactly figured out yet exactly why but this essay somehow feels different tonally
liking it though
I had written a LOT of academic shit on this topic before repurposing some of that into a video so that might have come through.
Can already tell this is gonna be a juicy one, been looking forward to you covering this topic.
I was raised pro-Thatcher. I’m so glad I’m learning the truth. Better late than never
When you mentioned the common misconception that the state and the free market are in diametric opposition--and that increasing the powers of one supposedly curtails the other--it reminded me of when I was much younger and ignorant; I had understood the "free market" was bad, but thought its problems were for lack of the state's strength: accepting a false premise somewhat like in the manner of Thatcher's opposition as mentioned I suppose.
Also, not that you didnt basically explain these points about the state, but I think it's worth mentioning the theoretical underpinning too: states cannot exist without class contradictions; this not only dispells the aforementioned 'opposition' of a capitalist state against the "free market" (i.e. capitalist relations), but tells us the latter cannot persist without the former. Hence why the all the ends of a neoliberal programme could not have been made in any other way but the expansion of state functions necessary to upholding capitalist relations.
Anyhow loving the vids, found you recently by binging the korra review series and finally felt like I wasnt insane for thinking the show was deeply problematic lol
Neoliberalism on paper, fascism in practice. I was preparing to have to see statistics to understand how terrible Thatcher was, but in reality, I just had to know she lied.
Could you elaborate on that claim?
@@johkupohkuxd1697 she subsidized more property to private owners (part neoliberalism). And when the workers protested, she suppressed labor unionization via the (police) state (part fascism).
@@johkupohkuxd1697if you truthfully look at the start of many neoliberal regimes in countries you’ll find that they pushed the same policies and economic agendas as fascism, it just uses less nationalism. Instead of suppressing labor movements for the good of the German people you do it for the good of the market, instead of giving subsidies to German business owners for the good of the German people you do it for the good of the market. It’s austerity fascism. It may not be as cryptic and delusional as fascism but it still pushes the same economic policies that fascists push. Remember fascism wasn’t ALL about race science and building myths, it had a practical side too. An economic side
Never seen a yankee get british politics so right, and be absolutely fucking hilarious at the same time, brilliant video
PS shes in a fuckin box
I live in England unfortunately
@@KayAndSkittles yeah having watched a few more videos and seeing the geotag in your Twitter I gathered that 😅 fair play being in liverpool though, anyone with a non scouse accent usually isnt met too well
The opening to this goes hard
The "free" market has always been a myth, there's always been someone dominating it for as long as markets have existed.
Not true commie
Also, it does not even function as they described - there are market failures galore so the "free market" is really a fantasy.
@@nataschavisser573 said
it the one who believes in communist utopia free market capitalism had proven to be the best economic model capitalist countries in general are the wealthiest countries on the planet
@@nataschavisser573 the communist utopia is a fantasy
@@basilmagnanimous7011 stopping the economic growth of the the third world because of some first word degenerates who can compete is both stupid and evil. Every body should have the chance to compete in the free market
Neoliberalism seems to take on a more idealistic and utopian view of capitalism. In contrast, the classical liberal view acknowledges that the free market is not perfect, but that it is the best we have. Therefore, the scope of government should be limited to allow for more personal freedom.
Been waiting for this video. I like to hear the perspectives of the British working class and their experiences under Thatcherism.
It depends on a lot of factors there is no one singular perspective as she pitted ( literally & figuratively) different working class areas against each other.
In the North & Scotland especially around pit area’s ( plus other areas particularly Liverpool)that supported the 1984 strike she is mostly hated by those who grew up under her policy’s, were in unions & had jobs she decimated.
Those boomers who benefited from the post war consciouses who were working class but did well & bought there own homes tend to have mixed feelings or even support her education level plays a part in this as well, hence the destruction of decent education for the working class, I was one of last generation of council estate young people who benefited from cheap higher education at university.
From what I know in the south there were pockets of the working class against her but her policies seemed weighted towards the South unless you were a minority.
I am Northern from a mining area in Yorkshire that went out on strike for a year, people were crushed when it failed.
A miner killed himself by pouring petrol over himself in his bath & lighting a match, there were rumours she deployed para’s amongst riot police in strong union areas who would beat up striking miners.
I spent most the 1980’s afterwards with my family moving from city to a different area to find decent work which he eventually did in the Northeast.
But English media is relentlessly pro Tory & pro Neo-liberal so unless people are educated or suffered though her policies you will get very different views.
love your videos, hope you keep making them for a long time, i feel i learn a lot from them
for anyone else interested and wanting to read more, I absolutely recommend Foucault's 'Birth of Biopolitics' where he systematically explains the history of neoliberalism and dismantles it into the disciplining force that it is
Based turtleneck enjoyer.
Vouch
David Harvey has written extensively on neoliberalism, but probably his most accessible work on it is _A Brief History of Neoliberalism_
Huh… One of the increasingly rare times when RUclips actually suggested something that i am interested in. Subbed
An important element of Right to Buy (the legislation by which UK government housing was sold off cheap) is that it didn't *just* create Tory voters in the form of newly minted homeowners. It also reduced government housing stock, because councils (local government) were obliged to sell houses for less than it cost to build them and give the one-time revenue generated to central government. In theory a portion of the "profits" could be put towards new building, but using that mechanism would have been a cash-sink in net, so no council did. Right to Buy meant that any new housing stock built would also be vulnerable to being sold off for less-than-cost, creating an impossible spiral for any council trying to keep pace.
The consequence of selling cut-price property to Britain's poor while simultaneously reducing the stock of social housing is entirely unsurprising if you think about it even for a second. A huge slice of former public housing is now in private hands, not as homes owned by those who live in them but as rental properties. With the housing safety net weakened many are forced to rent from private landlords - often the exact same housing that was their lot in the 70s and 80s, but more expensive and less well maintained. There was even a boom in buy-to-let mortgages in the early 2000s: middle class families getting on the rent-seeking ladder to make a nest egg for their kids.
Legislation has been tightened a bit since, but the reality for many in the UK is still that they'll never get on the 'housing ladder' (a problematic concept in itself) because a giant chunk of their income goes on paying off someone else's mortgage on the building they live in.
Yeah it was stupid. They could have done some discount and then reused the money to build new and to save a lot of local industries - people need houses AND jobs.
I great video, I remember trying to explain this to my professor and she looked at me like I was crazy.
I'd love to recommend BadEmpanada's video on NeoLiberalism as a follow-up to this video, good stuff toveri.
Yep, it's in the description with a few others I recommend!
Vasemmistolaiset...torille?
"there is no alternative" is a self-preceding prophecy
IF we let it precede itself
The axman gets the trees to vote for him by saying his ax is made of wood.
Growing up in the 90'sin Uruguay (a country in South America who's economy has historically depended on other bigger countries) I heard this phrase many times regarding noe-liberalism:
"The market is 'open' for them, but not for us. They can come as well us their products no problem, but you try to export products to them, and they will tax you out of competition."
As far as I know, in the years before Tatcher was elected, the country was paralyzed by strikes and economic malaise (I’m not british in any way, this is what I studied and read in my own). Why did the unions specifically, in the sources I read, seemed to be the main problem? Why did they went from being necessary to be perceived as an obstacle? And what could have been another way of solving the country’s economic problems?
I do not even pretend I undertand correctly what I casually read, nor I am expert in British economic history ( I don’t even speak english as my first language 😁🇮🇹), but I’d really like a genuine opinion about that.
Thanks
Why the unions went from necessary to an obstacle: in the aftermath of WW2, the British economy was destroyed. At the same time, millions of ordinary workers in the UK had just been trained as a vast army, to work together and use armed force against a foe. In short, the capitalists and the state were afraid that if they didn't cooperate with trade unions, they faced the prospect of armed revolution. And in order to keep their heirarchy functioning they needed the economy to function- thus they were forced to play ball with the unions and incorporate workers into the decision-making process, at least somewhat. But they were always searching for a way to return to their previous position of total dominance- and with the 1970s doldrums of the world economy, there was an opportunity to disrupt the workers' position of power. That's what Thatcherism was all about- a variety of political and economic techniques to break trade union power and get capitalists back into a position of unquestioned superiority
You're largely correct!! The dreadful Labour governments of the 1970s God Almighty! Everyone was poor, the Unions exploited the situation to get better wages as low, lots of bad loss making nationalised industries and unemployment. To call what MT did NL ???? Some of it was rescue pure and simple! Later on it was ideological poop!
you’re fr one of my fav channels 🔥🔥🔥
That introduction is fantastic. I really loved the video! Keep going with this, you've got me subscribed for more.
What a great video. Informative, clear, insightful, methodical. Thank you! I've only just found your channel and can't wait to watch more!
While deliberate deception in how subsidies were categorized may be an especially egregious example of the inherent contradictions of neoliberalism, the issue is a lot more fundamental than that. If neoliberalism claims to believe in a free market that will function efficiently without state interference, that is plainly absurd. But my understanding has always been that neoliberal doctrine explicitly asserted the role of the state in promoting the "free market," i.e., supporting and expanding privately-owned profit-seeking enterprises in every sector of society, while reducing the role of state-owned services as much as possible. In other words, neoliberalism is not libertarianism. Is that incorrect?
Mostly correct. Neoliberalism is most certainly not libertarianism!
But there's another layer of subterfuge here. Thatcher's government for example made a point of promoting how much subsidies were decreasing under their leadership (a lie, as my video goes into). The fact that they went to such great lengths to make that appear to be true suggests an intention (and this is a pattern we see with Reagan and subsequent leaders in the US and UK) of APPEARING to be significantly more libertarian than they are. Neoliberal thinkers have certainly described the role of the state in the way you describe but it's often much more euphemistic, and in the rhetoric of neoliberal politicians they don't tend to discuss how exactly the state goes about doing that, which was a big part of what I wanted to get at in this video. A lot of academic discussion of neoliberalism (Stiglitz was just one example of many) treats neoliberalism as if it is effectively adjacent to libertarianism, which is also part of the problem.
The other part of the problem of course is that capitalist libertarianism isn't real and is more or less a meme but that's another story!
@@KayAndSkittles Thanks so much for clarifying!
I loved the song choice at the end. I actually saw Frank Turner a couple of months ago
What song is it?
Your videos are so good. Every god damm time.
Alright imma go search what this "neoliberalism" is now that r/antiwork woke me up....
"Dios mio!" (Draw a cross) "A LIBERAL!"
Thanks for making this! Was a good watch!
One thing I would change is that the post-war consensus was more about stopping the spread of communism than preventing another world war. How would the UK government providing for it’s citizens stop imperialism? That sounds more like the stated purpose of the Marshall plan (though this too was greatly about stopping communism).
In my video I say that the post-war consensus was largely to stop the social unrest that came after ww1 which was precisely the fear of a working class uprising, not a world war. Apologies if I was unclear on that point.
@@KayAndSkittles what you are saying is total bs communist
@@KayAndSkittles very brave from you communist you are not even showing your sources
3:36 XD when I saw this video thumbnail I was like 'oh yay, a new John the Duncan video'. I was wrong, but apparently I was also a bit right.
Ngl those pictures of Jeremy with the Doom Thatcher console made my day. xD
Beautiful video skittles, also you kay you helped.
Just tap dancing for the ruling class and rich people. "Society is a brothel..." - Leo Tolstoy .... Thatcher was one hell of a pole dancer
Some people actually found her physically attractive?? I'd rather date pond life.
Anatoly Chubais, icon of neoliberalism in Russia and the most hated man there, directly responsible for privatization, said:
That motivation for privatization was political than economic. He was agree to sell to private hands state enterprises by any price - expensive, cheap, free and even giving additional pay. The goal was, quote - to destroy communism. Each privatized factory was a nail into its coffin
I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to hear another leftist who doesn't fall for the neoliberal/capitalist lie of the free market and small government.
I've been leftist for many years now, and an anarchist for a bit over 2 years, and about 2 years ago, I was under the same spell of the capitalist lie about capitalism and the status quo being a free market, and about small government etc. My dip into anarchist philosophy led me to an interesting line of theory that ties into an ideology that calls itself "left wing market anarchism", or "free market socialism". At first I was very confused cuz the capitalist conditioning still had that effect on me of associating the words "free market" with capitalism. I certainly so have my own criticism of the ideology now that I know more, especially about its lack of imagination about non-market systems that are very much liberating, as well as about its radical pro-market rhetoric that at times leavs it sounding ancap-ish. But the theory taught me something very useful.
Capitalism and the state have a deep history together that is hidden to most of us because capitalism has become so naturalised (human nature bullshit etc). The true history is that capitalism is made by the state, by its colonialism, and its imperialism, starting back in the middle ages, after the decline of feudalism, with kings stealing and reappropriating the commons from regular people and just giving it to wealthy aristocrats, thereby creating a landed gentry and landlord class, by restricting peasant and worker movement, by forcefully reappropriating working class and oppressed people's organisations like unions or mutual aid groups as institutions or junior partners of either state or capital and their bureaucracy, like the welfare state, or otherwise crushing them. By solidifying monopolies through regulatory bodies and artificial impositions like intellectual property, generous subsidies and I can go on and on and on... it's one long history of coercion and state violence... but it's largely forgotten because the events of the 20th century made it so the state started to more lean into the form of a more paternalistic protector, and reframing itself as a buffer between capital and the people's wellbeing out of necessity to curb the risk of revolution by giving some concessions that also doubled as additional tools of control, like the aforementioned welfare state. The left wing market anarchists in question thus take on a very strongly socialist, pro-labour, anti-business and anti-capitalist stance. And they tie all this analysis and more into a discussion of how a hypothetical society where the state acts purely for the benefit of the people rather than some sort of rulling class is all but impossible. I am not one of these left market anarchists, I see myself as closer to anarcho-communism or some form of anarchism without adjectives, but I have a lot of respect for them for what they taught me.
But so many conservatives, neoliberals, and self-proclaimed right "libertarians" have come to view the underlying capitalist society as a natural default, either completely unaware or willing to ignore the centuries of violence and coercion, much of which is very statist in origin, that created it in the first place. And just as you said, the result is that they can claim to be for small government and for a free market just because... essentially... they want to get rid of that buffer, of that state paternalism and protection, those concessions that were a necessity for capitalists and the state to take during the first 2/3 of the 20th century so they would not risk total collapse and revolution in return for some crumbs returned to the people. And then they actually keep or enhance all the aspects of the state that are about suppression and violence, but never refer to it.
Even right libertarians seem more keen to complain about regulations the see as protecting people whom they see as too weak and undeserving (the working class, unions, the poor, immigrants, other races and ethnicities, LGBTQ people and more) and regulations that actually serve as an obstacle to the rich and powerful, but are all too happy to ignore the regulations and state actions that do the opposite, like subsidies to big business unless maybe it's affecting them personally, or they at best pay lip service to it when you remind them of how the state keeps down the common man but then forget about it later.
It's this exact mindset. They adore the state as an arbitor of law and order, as a suppressor and enforcer that keeps the working class and marginalized people down, and keep their trade and capitalist empire afloat, and are only "small-government" or "free market" when they see the state as acting in any way paternalistically towards those groups, or as an obstacle to their ambitions.
This is a fantastic video, and creates an interesting bridge between neoliberal ideology and concentrated power in the marketplace and society at large. If you haven't already I would recommend reading Nitzan and Bichler's Capital as Power. They demonstrate a fantastic economic argument that capitalist profit is actually the result of a corporation's power in the market, however, they don't pair it with a political analysis about neoliberal governments or austerity politics. This video largely completes that missing link and I'd recommend you pick the book up as it would be an amazing magnum opus of a video to tie the concepts together. Great content as always
This truly is an absolutely sensational video. Well done. Liked and subscribed.
Also, let's not forget the effect of Ayn Rand and her Objectivism drivel had on Thatcher, Reagan and the subsequent crop of contemporary Thatcher-Reagan cosplayers.
From what I hear coming out of the UK, it sounds like an "incurious media" is still an issue there. Well, probably most of the problems discussed here are still an issue there
Absolutely. Whether the news organisation is pro or against the current government, they still always repeat official lines and statements with very little deeper analysis.
Is this the video with clips of that british sketch comedy show?
8:24 omg that's Christian Lindner, Germany's Treasury secretary and market liberal, right now. Shadow Budget after Shadow Budget while insisting on a balanced budget ideology.
Which Doom mod is that? It looks somewhat familiar.
Thatcher's Techbase!
Aside from the graphics/mean grinder music at 1:05 that scares away old people like me, this is an excellent video. Thanks!
I know Thatcher was the prime minister, but who were her mentors and what lead her to that posture?
The funny thing is of course, that this ideology that thatcher came up with is in no way new. It is, in fact, over a century old, and the Conservatives *tried* it during the 1840s to solve a particular issue in Ireland. It caused a famine so devastating, and a region so unstable, that the population of Ireland has not recovered to this day. It also of couorse, happened in Bengali in modern day India, when they stripped the people of their surplus in times of famine, which resulted in even more devastation, with a death toll so atastrophic it would make you think I was speaking of the Holodomor. This is of course, not to accept the premise, but to note that we know what happens when the premise of a free market is accepted, and it is a plague upon the people, even if the land continues to thrive.
This video is really good. A lot of the video essays I watch do little more than to confirm or reinforce beliefs that I already hold, but here I actually learned something new. I will definitely bring this up the next time I confront some neoliberal doofus.
The only reason the free market is supposed to be loved is its implied ability at maintaining unbiased meritocracy. But since it's a market, as opposed to an actual forum, those that enter with the most money become the most impowered participants. What we were sold is nothing short of RichDaddysboyonomics. You are empowered above all others for having been born in the right mansion.
20:00 THIS GOT ME TO LOOK UP THE ACTUAL SONG AND I LOVE IT.
This entire video is a showcase in being factual, but not truthful, and good display of being shamelessly deceptive.
100/100
yeeess, my favorite youtuber uploaded
Spot on, yet another banger.
And guess what: this is exactly the economic policy that has been carried out in Russia since the days of Boris Yeltsin.
Best intro about Thatcher ever
THANK YOU!
Not only is this brilliant corrector-explainer, but it gets at the heart of what I've been saying for a while. The mystical capacity for self-correction (aka the invisible hand) touted by neoliberals (and libertarian pseudo-intellectuals and fauxconomists) is indistinguishable from an invocation of some god or other (which is hilarious, given how many libertarians are atheists). It is not an explanation of what happens, it's another way of describing the phenomenon and description is not explanation.
As for the ideology side, the Republicans have got it down to a fine art: make elections about how ideologically pure you are, and once in power you can do what you want behind closed doors, out of sight of the electorate. See also ALEC and the proliferation of think tanks working day and night to find ways to pleasingly package voters' self-annihilation.
Another Kay and skittles vid in my favorites goddamn ur good
14:17 I'm pretty sure Marx wrote about how the state could take the role of the bourgeois in capitalism. Merely having state owned industry isn't enough to achieve communism.
Best 20min spent on YT this year.
I was born in 1982 and raised in a 'middle class' home with parents of the 'boomer' generation. My dad was an accountant (of course he was) and an ardent Tory voter. To this day he sights Thatcher as 'the best PM the country ever had'. Sure why wouldn't he? He bought his first house for £2.50 (maybe) on his salary alone while my mum looked after us. As house prices soared their wealth increased (through no effort of their own) and the new markets that Tech brought fed into his sector and he earned good money. He was completely solitary in his career cycle and had no understanding of a unionised work force. He was completely detached from the working classes who were having their lives and communities ripped apart during this period - so sure, why should it bother him? He had a Jaguar on the driveway. Everything was fine.
I love my dad to the core but now at 40 (and many years before) I know he was absolutely wrong. He bet his own individual growth at the expense of others and worse, future generations (his children, his grandchildren). I love him but that we exist at economical and societal polar opposites, I often struggle.
At least we agree on football ❤️
O how selfless you are communist
How are you any different than your dad? It sounds like you're just fine with everything because the grift trickled down to you.
@@autoteleology not sure what you mean about the grift trickling down to me?
We're different because I see the world differently. I see the demonstrable damage caused by growing wealth inequality, I'm not blinkered to it all. I understand solidarity amongst working people. I work in a blue colour unionised job and see the overwhelming benefits that it brings the work force.
We are very different people
@@davebowman1982 how Nobel of you communist
can someone tell me what the doom mod show in the beginning of the video?
Skittles always so thoughtful
Very good explanation, but it'll have to completely collapse.
What we get wrong about neoliberalism is that we think neoliberalism exists; liberalism is liberalism, full-stop - and at that, it's perpetual.
But it does exist it might not be a different mode of production or a new development of capitalism (like imperialism for Lenin) but is the rationalization of capital by its ideologues, the "ideal" realm of liberal ideas of today if you put it bluntly
Neoliberalism in a nutshell: Socialism for the rich, free market capitalism for the rest of us.
It's a political project that focuses on obfuscating the conflicting interests of employers and employees. It also claims to be promoting personal responsibility while undermining workers' legal rights and ideological ability to have political agency.
Amazing vid as usual
Excellent video. Thank you!
Freedom is wonderful
Absolutely amazing video. Very similar things happened around the world including Turkey.
Also, idk why but you sound like the Extra Credits guy
Pretty much what I already knew stripping workers regulation and rights and massive bailouts and subsidies in the hands or already rich corporations and shareholders when the free capitalist market breaks down which it always does
Very informative piece!
BarakalypseNow also has a nice, though incomplete, series on Neoliberalism
This is fantastic. Very few people in Britain actually understand what Thatcher did and why it was wrong. Apart from the North esp Liverpool. In the South of England most adults are just mini Thatchers whether it's against their own interests or not.
Most northern mining areas particularly parts of Yorkshire understood they went on strike for a year in 1984 add wales plus Scotland to the list as well.
Amazing video as per usual. How do you do all this research. I would love to do projects like this for university but often find the research phase as draining and often dead ends. You you have a strategy or main way of researching?
Making use of whatever resources your university library has available or even google scholar is a great way to get started (that's probably obvious) but my main method is once I find an interesting and inciteful piece I start following their footnotes to the works they cite, even if it's citing it to attack it because then you start to get a feel for the academic discourse around a topic. For me researching is just as much about figuring out how people misrepresent history as it is about understanding the history itself. Research should feel a bit like a conversation!
@@KayAndSkittles Sorry your evil communist ideology does not work you are just repeating keynesian nonsense evry free market economy works better than kaynsiean economy . overall Tacher redused government spending let as not forget how bad was Britain during the 70s
Benefits do not exist in a welfare state, but entitlements of work and taxation.
What's a good book that breaks down British political economy from 1970-1990?
anyone know the outro song? its catchy
Frank Turner - Thatcher Fucked The Kids. it's cute
Frank Turner. "Thatcher F*cked the Kids"
Brilliant!
Capitalism needs a legal system, it does not (necessarily) need a government.
In a similar vein, I really like pointing out that austerity is an authoritarian strategy that can only be realized through violence - simply flipping the common rhetoric; usually works to disorient the more casual libs
Oh hey look its the Living Rent Doom mod arcade game at the start. Join a tenants union folks!
There
Ain't
No
Such
Thing
As
A
Free
Market
I would like to offer a comment, I would very much like to hear your opinion about Dragon Age, especially the Qunari, a race of beings that exist in that universe and that have a leftist ideology
those are Allende's glasses huh
Never Forget
As all those living on the streets and those who work hard having to go to food banks also those who have to wait 2 years for NHS treatment?
But how do I get to the essay Thatcher's spiral and a citizen renaissance, despite our ideology of property..... Sadge