Chris Hedges: The Wreckage of Neoliberalism

Fascism is not an economic policy

Image by Peg Hunter via Flickr

Dandelion Salad

with Chris Hedges

RT America on Dec 11, 2016

On this week’s episode of On Contact, Chris Hedges discusses the damage done to Europe by neoliberal policies with Philipp Ther, author of “Europe Since 1989: A History”. RT Correspondent Anya Parampil looks at the current rise of the far right in Europe spawned by neoliberalism.

From the archives:

Two Poles of an Evil Duopoly by Keith Rosenthal

Abby Martin: Rejecting Neoliberalism and Imperialism

Chris Hedges: Fascism, Neoliberalism and Third Parties in the US

Ralph Nader: The Road to Corporate Fascism (must-see)

Chris Hedges: The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Emergence of Fascism

Neoliberalism: The Economic Model: Origins, Theory, Definition (2005)

15 thoughts on “Chris Hedges: The Wreckage of Neoliberalism

  1. Pingback: Chris Hedges: The Nature of Neoliberalism and its Consequences – Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Chris Hedges: Ayn Rand and the Culture of Greed – Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Corporate Plunder–The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships by Pete Dolack – Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Chris Hedges: Liberal Elites Spoke The Language Of Values While Thrusting A Knife Into The Backs Of The Underclass – Dandelion Salad

  5. We used to talk about the dreaded ‘hangover’ ~ that inevitable consequence of over-indulgence.

    Nowadays, it would be more accurate, probably, to refer to the resultant crisis of both messing with our minds due to self-indulgence in questionable substances and, politically…courtesy of the manipulative diabolisms of the deep state…as a truly ghastly psychosis ~ from East to West, and back again, all the while oscillating from one pole to t’other.

    I had been fairly convinced of late, that we needed desperately to reinvent society, totally ~ from top to bottom; but actually, I am now beginning to realize it is really our perception of society that must change, along with our expectations and those default assumptions born of conditioned and inherited prejudice.

    I really enjoy On Contact. How illustrative it is that Chris mentions Karl Popper’s deeply considered caveat, for example.

    There is a thoroughly stupid agenda broadly in evidence right now, to discredit RT; a farcical attempt, intended to reinforce the cascade of demon-Putin juvenalia that is projected by so-called intelligence agencies ~ principally because RT’s content is so much more intelligent than the vacuous, quotidian, bull-horn drivel that the corporatized MSM disgorge with increasingly tasteless banality. Ironic isn’t it?

  6. “Not quite as good as I had hoped. They mention that the left must learn the language of the disenfranchised, which is true. But the language, like any depends on the structures imposed on the use of words that can tend to keep one from acting in a way that would be truly freeing.

    As I posted earlier today, Chesterton once wrote “We may say broadly that free thought is the best of all safeguards against freedom. Managed in a modern style, the emancipation of the slave’s mind is the way of preventing the emancipation of the slave. Teach him to worry about whether he wants to be free, and he will not free himself.”

    And the left isn’t immune to this. As we’ve seen since the election, the left has resorted to the use of fear — a fear that, in a cheap way, galvanizes people through emotions in a way that it shows that the left either jettisons or never understood how to present a truly radical critique of social movements to the very people they believe they’re advocating for. The left does not know how to present itself as an alternative to the either/or world people live in today: democrat or republican, welfare or work ethic, pro-life or pro-choice, etc., etc. If people can’t find a way to expand their perceptions to see there are more ways than two, the left will never find itself part of the discussion. But, instead, the left is finding its way to use that dualistic either/or language rather than to find a way to blast that language’s hold on us. People had been taught to talk about whether they want freedom, as in such teachings, never find their way to actually free themselves.”

    • We need to be very careful how we deploy the term ‘slave’ and ‘enslavement.’ Some may be in denial and are convinced they are free, others may dream of freedom, but have not adequately interrogated the assumed compass of their perceived bondage; to arrive at a robust determination of what exactly it is they find themselves entrapped by.

      Others, simply do not want to be free; rather, more specifically, they seek direction and instruction as to what they must do to minimize the demands that thinking for themselves entails ~ so they may not dare to make that effort; or simply believe they are incapable of exercising full responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.

      Freedom is entirely relative to circumstance; and is governed by complex factors both personal and collective ~ that generate the circumstances of life, depending upon one’s individual experience and social conditions.

      • “The commentator misses Chesterton’s point that language can be used to create the varied responses the commentator points to. In the case of the modern state, the use of language to manipulate is intentional and not neutral. It is what is at the heart of propaganda. By controlling the structure that words fall into, they control how those words literally play out, or not as the case may be. It is also George Orwell’s point when he points to removing the words from the dictionary and thereby make radical thought unthinkable — literally. The use of such propaganda is too important to ignore by simply saying people have different reactions. The reactions are just what Chesterton was talking about — that the language will force a certain type of reaction.

        The interesting further result comes from Hegel and that dealt with the how the masters themselves fool themselves into believing they’re not “enslaved” by their own structures. He saw that only the slave could liberate the master from the master’s dependence on slaves.”

        • Thanks for your thoughtful observations. I like the Hegelian paradox. Very true.

          I’m not so sure about the Chesterton notion. Mental straight-jackets are uncomfortable and Orwellian erasure is insidious ~ as so many feminist writers have made abundantly clear. Adam Curtis recently produced a compelling documentary ‘HyperNormalisation’ that addressed some of these themes.

          Obviously how we frame things will shape our narratives and structure debate; but so long as we defend a free press with supporting media, such a totalitarian gestalt is unworkable. The point of law is to regulate not restrict. Our job is to resist prejudice and unjust discrimination that defiles the rule of law, to remain vigilant, curtail corruption and call the organon (Aristotle) of governance to account.

          Extreme measures may beguile those who dare not express the will or ‘educated’ capacity to discriminate; but the ethical basis for any truly ‘open society’ will always be the right to exercise free thought, free inquiry and free expression. The tyranny we are witnessing today in the affluent ‘West’ is the betrayal and abuse of the very things its ‘guardians’ purport to protect and advocate.

          Yin is not-yang ~ regardless of how the Wall St barcodes are manipulated.

    • Chestertons critique on Modernism is summed in these words ” Intolerance always comes in the name of tolerance ” .
      see David Berlinksys debate with Hitchens where he exposes the foundation of pre Neo liberalism of the reign of terror temple of reason in the 1790s in France .

Comments are closed.