is neoliberalism the most successful ideology in world history?

[© tweed]

taken from Perry Anderson's pessimistic 2000 article 'Renewal':

Ideologically, the novelty of the present situation stands out in historical view... For the first time since the Reformation, there are no longer any significant oppositions - that is, systematic rival outlooks - within the thought-world of the West; and scarcely any on a world scale either... Whatever limitations persist to its practice, neo-liberalism as a set of principles rules undivided across the globe: the most successful ideology in world history.



the key questions for those of a left perspective I think are 1) is Occupy and the reaction to the 2007- financial crisis the beginning of a competing narrative 2) should we support authoritarian/'pre-modern' political forces, such as Islamism, against Western neo-colonialism?  or are we better off in a situation more open to competing political narratives?  (are neoliberal dystopias, such as post-Invasion Iraq, more open to competing political narratives than was Baathism?)  and I could go on, but won't.

[Lief 🗽]

Neoliberalism has only existed for a few decades. I think it's a little too early to say it's the most successful ideology in world history...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Liberalism is definitely the most successful ideology. Since the 19th Century, it has completely reshaped the western world, bringing down a socio-economicomico-political system that had lasted for more than a millennium and creating another one which appears unreplaceable so far.

Neoliberalism is far too recent to match it.

[© tweed]

Neoliberalism has only existed for a few decades. I think it's a little too early to say it's the most successful ideology in world history...

why?  in terms of world dominance/hegemony its success is unparalleled in history.  time happens a lot faster now than it did when to took days to communicate between London and Paris.

[ingemann]

I think it's rather ridiculous to say so, as we have not followed neolieral policies through this crisis (thanks Lord the migthy if we had done so we would have seen a second Depression), no country have even serious thought aout it, and the only one suggesting we should do so, is a minority of Ivory Tower economists and corporate stooges (who only embrace neoliberalism on the point their it benefit their employers). But as our medies are dominated by this minority of very loud people it may seem like they have won sometimes.

[k-onmmunist]

No, since it doesn't even exist at government level anymore.

[© tweed]

No, since it doesn't even exist at government level anymore.

what?

[k-onmmunist]

No, since it doesn't even exist at government level anymore.

what?

Neoliberalism suggests free markets, which don't exist because the system we have far more resembles corporatism - oligopolies, corporate welfare etc.

[© tweed]

No, since it doesn't even exist at government level anymore.

what?

Neoliberalism suggests free markets, which don't exist because the system we have far more resembles corporatism - oligopolies, corporate welfare etc.

it entails the centrality of markets, and domination of those markets by private capital; of course, propagandists that draw pictures along your lines also play an obfuscating role.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Depends on your definition of "successful".

Successful...for whom?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mostly 'neoliberal' is a term of abuse. Though a useful one sometimes.

[Beet]

Neo-liberalism to me is a specific set of ideas and institutions arising from 1970 to 2005 (intellectual moreso stretching back to the early 1940s), which cannot be substituted or captured by any other phrase, particularly 'free markets' or 'capitalism' which are generally much broader terms. Currently it is quite successful, but the 2008 crisis shattered some of the absolute confidence in it, yes.

[Democratic Hawk]

Neo-liberalism to me is a specific set of ideas and institutions arising from 1970 to 2005 (intellectual moreso stretching back to the early 1940s), which cannot be substituted or captured by any other phrase, particularly 'free markets' or 'capitalism' which are generally much broader terms. Currently it is quite successful, but the 2008 crisis shattered some of the absolute confidence in it, yes.

Totally and utterly discredited it if you want my brutally honest opinion . Time it went the way of revolutionary socialism. Nowt good, ultimately, came of ideological rigormortis

As former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd put it, society must not be forced to choose between two opposing extremes; between the dogmatic “ideological straitjackets…of Friedrich von Hayek and Leonid Brezhnev.”

[Redalgo]

No. It has always been in competition with other paradigms. Most of the Western world was influenced strongly by the corporatist themes of social democracy at some point or another in the 20th century, but it has kind of lost its mojo since the 1980s. Forms of the nationalist, neo-mercantilist order appear somewhat popular though, being well established in the PRC, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and much of the developing world when the IMF is not twisting arms. I think of neo-liberalism as quite potent in recent history but still just another passing fad.

[© tweed]

Currently it is quite successful, but the 2008 crisis shattered some of the absolute confidence in it, yes.

some counter-narratives are emerging (but then again they always existed, World Social Forum, Seattle '99, etc) but the 'medicine' for the crisis of neoliberalism has been more brutal neoliberalism.

[Boris]

Currently it is quite successful, but the 2008 crisis shattered some of the absolute confidence in it, yes.

some counter-narratives are emerging (but then again they always existed, World Social Forum, Seattle '99, etc) but the 'medicine' for the crisis of neoliberalism has been more brutal neoliberalism.

Many claim that the ramifications of a Greek default would entail even deeper austerity measures than what is currently being implemented (assuming that the current measures will prevent a default, which MSM seems to designate as a 'no'). Is this line of thinking intellectually defensible or no?

[Gustaf]

I'm not sure how we're defining neo-liberalism exactly. I thought that it basically meant libertarian? That's obviously not even successful and certainly not the most.

Liberalism as an ideology with its belief in democracy, human rights and free market capitalism is obviously extremely successful. But that sort of logical since it is clearly superior to historical alternatives like communism or feudalism or what have you.

[© tweed]

I'm not sure how we're defining neo-liberalism exactly. I thought that it basically meant libertarian? That's obviously not even successful and certainly not the most.

the best one-sentence definition I have come across is "neoliberalism is a political logic in which market values are extended into all forms of political and social action".  the best full length book I have come across is 'A Brief History of Neoliberalism' by David Harvey.

Currently it is quite successful, but the 2008 crisis shattered some of the absolute confidence in it, yes.

some counter-narratives are emerging (but then again they always existed, World Social Forum, Seattle '99, etc) but the 'medicine' for the crisis of neoliberalism has been more brutal neoliberalism.

Many claim that the ramifications of a Greek default would entail even deeper austerity measures than what is currently being implemented (assuming that the current measures will prevent a default, which MSM seems to designate as a 'no'). Is this line of thinking intellectually defensible or no?

they've dug their heels in too deep to start heading in any other direction.

[batmacumba]

I'm not sure how we're defining neo-liberalism exactly. I thought that it basically meant libertarian? That's obviously not even successful and certainly not the most.

Liberalism as an ideology with its belief in democracy, human rights and free market capitalism is obviously extremely successful. But that sort of logical since it is clearly superior to historical alternatives like communism or feudalism or what have you.

Liberalism is as meaningful as socialism. People can take the word and make a wide use of it, yet you can tell, at least, a general ethos or some points of view.
If you take strictly, I wouldn't classify the postwar consensus inside It, once many concessions were needed on the free market aspect to imbricate the working class within the system, to the point that neoliberalism was first used to classify a type of social liberalism that accepted the failure of free market, later called New Liberalism and which main point of divergence with socialdemocracy relayed on unions role and workers gains. So we need to count from around the 1870's to the big crash. 60 years and the rise of totalitarianism.
The concept Tweed's given is pretty accurate, but I like to call it fourth phase, post-industrialism or information capitalism. If you count the geographical range It reached, It's fair to call It the most successful, paired with the Imperialism which was needed to maintain European liberal capitalism.
If time is the lens used, then I think 27 is a bad record for an economic system. If improvement on human conditions is the parameter, nothing beats the postwar consensus and neoliberalism was only able to work to upper classes. If were talking about amounts of money going 'round, I'm not well versed on 19Th century economics, but It's pretty easy when you can create private money.