
Neoliberalism and the commodification of opinions - teslacar
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world?CMP=
======
etplayer
If you're looking for a deeper analysis than this article offers, I have some
recommendations for the interested reader in considering our modern way of
life within capitalism and its relation to our wellbeing and our concepts of
'freedom', mainly from a Left perspective though not necessarily so. I hope
these are useful:

* The Frankfurt School on the "culture indutsry"[0], which is the effect of capitalist mode of production on our culture (specifically art and within that, most focus is on the literary arts though it easily applies to music too).

* Guy Debord's _Society of the Spectacle_ [1], describing the world at a deeper level to as Marx put it, or rather, a deeper analysis of our society from a situationist point of view.

* Marx's concepts of _commodity fetishism_ [2] and _alienation_ [3], describing the effects which the capitalist mode of production has on the psychological well being of the working class.

* The extensions from this, again I must refer to the Frankfurt School, I'm in the middle of a book called _Escape from Freedom_ [4] by Erich Fromm. He wrote a foreword to the second edition 25 years after its first publication, in which he claims that the conditions he describes of the freedom of man in capitalist society have become even more important to analyse for our wellbeing overall. It is a psycho-sociological work, and I haven't read it in full, I'm slowly making my way through it, however from what I've read I would recommend it for its interesting point of view.

* For a critique of the notions of tolerance in society and pluralistic democracy (which is supportive of "true" democracy, of power of the people as individuals rather than religious, ethnic or social interest groups), I recommend in particular the first and third essays (the third by Marcuse, the first by Richard Wolff) from _A Critique of Pure Tolerance_ [5]

[0]
[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/cultu...](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-
industry.htm)

[1]
[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.ht...](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm)

[2] I must first note that "commodity fetishism" is absolutely _not_ about how
people are materialistic and value material wealth over spiritual or moral
action. It is about how through the market, the interactions between people
themselves are hidden and proxied such that the commodity itself is
fetishised, to use that term in the sense of meaning "of unnatural excessive
focus"
[https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/e.htm#fetishism](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/e.htm#fetishism)

[3] Alienation is a concept that Marx borrowed from 18th century philosopher
G.W.F Hegel, it's one which is generally deeper than how Marx uses it, and
there are others who interpret it differently to Marx. Here is the Marxian
view, though there are others you can find.
[https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/l.htm#alienation](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/l.htm#alienation)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom)
and there are links to download mobile-friendly versions of the work here:
[https://libcom.org/library/escape-freedom](https://libcom.org/library/escape-
freedom)

[5] PDF version here:
[https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Criti...](https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance.pdf)

~~~
DataWorker
Is it possible that neoliberal policy is one means by which the modern day
Marxist and their watered down derivates seek to emanticize the eschaton?
What's the end game?

~~~
etplayer
I have no idea. However I will say that neoliberalism or even social democracy
is very different from the views espoused by Communists pre and post Marx; as
Marx said, the theory of Communism can be condensed to one statement: the
abolition of private property. However as Badiou notes, there is the
_Communist Hypothesis_ [0], that is, the idea of these subversive movements
which aim for liberation and the removal of our class structures - these may
not necessarily involve the full abolition of private property.

I do not consider neoliberalism to be a modern Marxist invention, though I
can't claim to know about its history, and of course hitsory is extremely
important to reveal a movement's origin and aims. My reasoning is from the
idea that neoliberalism supports private property and what Marxists see as a
class society. It does not aim for the abolition of these classes, but rather
its stated goal is to acheive development _within_ the capitalist system.

In this way, neoliberalism is identical to social democracy in its overall aim
- it works within a class society to try and bring better conditions, though
people frequently criticise neoliberalism as being uncaring of the poor, the
Marxist would say a similar thing about social democracy.

For a read by a thinker inspired by Marx, I've heard good things about David
Harvey's _A Brief History of Neoliberalism_. I have not read it, so I don't
know if I should recommend it, but since you mentioned modern Marxists, and he
is one, it may be of some use to you.

[0] [https://newleftreview.org/II/49/alain-badiou-the-
communist-h...](https://newleftreview.org/II/49/alain-badiou-the-communist-
hypothesis)

------
mikhailfranco
Duplicate
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15048024](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15048024)

------
boyce
This reads like an undergrad has just binged on Adam Curtis and thinks they've
reached some meaningful conclusions.

I'm not saying much is wrong, just that it's neither new or insightful

~~~
norswap
I'd be curious to know which conclusions you think the author has reached.

And you're probably being downvoted because your criticism is neither specific
nor substantiated, and fairly snide besides.

~~~
DataWorker
It's rather selective in what it doesn't consider, namely nations and culture.
To oppose neo-liberal policies with Keynesian economics doesn't get you very
far in explaining the state of things. Was Bill Clinton a Hayekian who
rejected the "dashing and socially connected" Keynes? Slight of hand.

But I liked the article overall and think it's a good starting point for
discussion.

