Why is Neoliberalism our enemy again?

They're only Holla Forums's enemy

How can they be our enemy?

Capitalism is the enemy. Neoliberalism is capitalism, hence its the enemy.

Yeah, yeah, I'm false-flagging you as literally George Soros.

Anyway, I can see two problems with Neoliberalism:

1) It unites nations in the basis of a common attack on workers rights.

2) This alliance between capitalist nations could break down from the inherent competition amongst them.

Can we overcome these?

because it's the contemporary political horizon of capitalist state power – if there's any operational uniformity or political 'programme' behind the way we're exploited, it's neoliberalism

It is the political horizon of some industries (especially banking), but other industries (especially those that rely on manufacturing) are protesting by supporting more reactionary politicians.

Because it's a form of capitalism.

Exactly. The communist party motto in my country is: "A patriotic and leftist alternative". Guess what, they rise theyr number of voters on every election. Why? Because people are understanding that the outside world is actively fucking us in the ass and robbing our resources.

You just have to look at venezuela. You can't built socialism and still actively want to be a part of the global capitalist market. You will get fucked by bankers and by wall street brokers.

Fuck off.

so is nazbol

...

Venezuela was fucked as much by its mismanaged economy as it was by international bankers.

I work in utilities. It's not a question of what formal political alignment the people who make up an industry have – without a doubt neither the people I work with nor my boss are neoliberal market internationalists – but it's a privatised public service with insecure conditions of employment, de facto union blacklisting and exploitation of/within private contractors. These are all hallmarks of the neoliberal era. And even back when Lenin wrote it was impossible to separate other 'industries' from banking: the political orientation of financial capital is universally relevant.

But this is the thing: in a financialized international economy, it's banking which qualifies what counts as economic 'mismanagement'. As soon as production becomes dominated by international capital flows, any disruption of these flows or adoption of an alternative economic scheme (provision of services in kind on the basis of need or equity, domestic demand management etc.) becomes 'bad economics'.

That's just capitalism though. Why would it be any different in an isolationist or a fascist state? I don't think it's the hallmark of neoliberalism. On the other hand when Hillary speaks of "hemispheric common market" under the influence of Wall Street, then yes, that would be it.

I find it hard to believe the corruption and misallocation of money and material would not be mismanagement if international banks weren't involved.

It's not. Marx would have probably supported it actually.

What? It's not capitalism if there's stricter employment regulation and everyone's hired on direct labour?

No; this is the thing. It's not 'what kind of state you're in'. Franco's Spain was a fascist state, but while the regime was still in power it was still forced to adapt to international markets and adopt a scheme of internal liberalisation. States don't decide things – that's a hallmark of neoliberalism and forms of capitalism in general (Imperialism is also paradoxically 'international').

I'm not saying ineffective allocations of resources are impossible in socialist societies – far from it; so-called 'socialist states' have traditionally tried to play the capitalist game and maximise capital accumulation (even if they set up social programmes at the same time). What I'm saying is that the ability to avoid capitalist crises has everything to do with banking, and the necessities of 'economic management' depend upon the political orientation of capital.

Franco was hardly a fascist, he actully purged the fascist elements of Primo de Rivera and instituted a Catholic Conservative one-party state.

He wasn't a neoliberal either, that's why his regime didn't survive the neoliberal era.

Other than that, yes, he and all other countries regardless of politics adjusted to the economic realities of the world, even the Soviet Union.

That doesn't say much about our subject matter though.

Dare I ask what's your definition of Fascism?

how do you people come up with this

I don't have a private definition of fascism.
If we call every anti-communist a fascist, that's a different thing.
Especially in the economic part where our discussion is focused, he was pretty run-off-the-mill conservative.
The other poster essentially confirmed this by saying that Franco was already liberalizing his economy by the time he died.
ANYWAY
The point was about Neoliberalism and how the kind of state you have doesn't matter supposedly.

Basically you guys are confusing a Totalitarian Catholic Conservative (politics) with a Fascist (economics).

This would be like confusing a Totalitarian Liberal, with a Communist.

Imagine if Hillary had won the election and for some crazy reason she institued a super-liberal dictatorship. That wouldn't make her a Communist, would it?

It would appear so to the religious conservatives though.

You might get even more members by saying "God wants you to be a socialist and will curse you with bad luck if you don't join". I mean, while we're not giving a shit about trying to enlighten the masses and make them class consciousness and just playing on their pre-existing superstitions and prejudices.

Venezuela was nationalist. It got fucked anyway. Nationalism doesn't stop shit.

Now, as to why Neoliberalism affects the kind of state you can have, it is quite simple.

As the other poster admitted, neoliberalism requires a "hand-off" approach from the state.

Doesn't this severely reduce your options?

Can you have a socialist state that is also neoliberal?

Gee, I dunno, who could disagree with that?

I am not an isolationist, but as a pragmatist, I recognize that isolationism is currently the only political movement popular enough to stop neoliberalism.

Much like the aut-right being the only currently useful weapon against SJWs, I disagree with them, but realpolitik demands that I make use of them.

Socialism and neoliberalism are diametrically opposed. Socialism is based around the ideas of democracy and globalism, where everyone is lifted upward as equals bound by legal harmony. Neoliberalism is based around the ideas of ruthlessness and transnationalism, where arbitrage between different nations is exploited to undermine legal norms and force everyone downward in a bottomless death spiral.