It doesn't matter that Hillary won but Holla Forums is in full out denial and it's hilarious

I think this will be the case.

PRAISE THE MARKET!

Better check yourself before you correct yourself.

When I first stumbled upon the concept of the spook by groping blindly in the dark, before ever reading Stirner, "the market" was the example I most often used as the prime example of abstract thing that people pretend is real and put ahead of their own interests. I think this image is the best example of market as spook there ever will be.

Notice how careful they are to maintain the illusion that the market is a natural godlike force to be appeased, to the point where they talk all this shit instead of saying 'the people who run the economy and decide who gets money to do business.' This is fetishism at its finest.

Holla Forums finally admitting that capitalism isn't real, and just a phantom that forms their big other.

I thought this place was called leftypol

Capitalism as the social relations that define the current dominant mode of production is totally real, the market as arbitrator and natural force that directs all human activity towards a beneficial end is not.

So people buying and selling stuff is real but only when it's called capitalism.

I think you see as capitalism as real because it is one of the terms you use, while "the market", which is made up of the same things you call capitalism, is not real because it is a term used in the reasoning of those who aren't marxists.

No, dumbass. People selling and buying stuff is real regardless of what you call it. Markets are real. "The market" or "the economy" are not real when you use those labels to refer to a powerful animistic spirit worshipped by bankers and reagonomists that brings prosperity in exchange for sacrifices. There is no such thing. It's just a bunch of fat old fucks who hug their money tight and go "NUH-UH" when someone refuses to implement neoliberal policy.

Or feared. Music is capitalism, philosophy is capitalism, racism is capitalism, anti-racism is capitalism, SJW's are capitalism, fashion is capitalism… (or they're all neo-liberalism, the new spook on the block which functions even better because it is more vapid)

When it comes to the perception of concepts as almost independently existing actors, those who use the term "the market" in the sense of the link you posted, are far behind you.

There are no forests, only trees!

You're really stupid, huh?

whoever wins, we loose

Neo-liberalism isn't ideology that anyone actually subscribes to, it was an economic policy set out by social-liberal post-war german economists that became a basket term for anything and everything that leftists don't like.

It's the leftist version of cultural marxism.

I'm a Cultural Marxist and I take offense to that.

go back to Holla Forums

Classic.

As it happens, there's already a name for everything leftists don't like. It's called capitalism.

That's complete b.s.

Neoliberalism is a real thing and it basically just mean privatization (extremely simple way of describing) with laissez-fare economics wasn't invented by leftist dumbass. it comes from liberals (the right.)

It isn't even comparable to "cultural Marxism"

You fucking stupid

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

They tell me to go here though.

Of course you're siding with Hillary.
You'd all be in jail under Trump.

This is always the case.

lurk more faggot

None of us support her.

yeah, well, don't listen to them.

Cultural marxism is a real thing and it means faggots taking it up the bum. As we all know, faggots really do take it up the bum so cultural marxism is a totes real ideology.

I see that they changed the wikipedia page because it used to be listed as a universally contested term.

As you can see, it's not an ideology someone actually subscribes to, it's a catch all phrase that serves as a signifier for someone or something that fullfills a role in the conspirational leftist version of history.

Read this, it's narrative structure is almost identitical.

theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Do you know what board you're on you filthy Holla Forumsack?

What? Do you not understand how stupid this line of argument is?

This is cultural marxism
youtube.com/watch?v=S9AbuFhT0W4

Is a spending cut a governing ideology, is a free trade agreement?

Those things being real doesn't mean that there is a unified, conspirational ideology that controls everyone and everything, yet is adhered to by no one. Neo-liberalism then, is only really adhered to by it's opponents, it is they who create it, describe it, uncover it's plotting and document it's historical formation. It serves the same function as the term "fascism" does, a signifier that doesn't really signify an other, but a perception of the self. The language surrounding it betrays the spookiness "The eternal return of Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems". Those aren't political or economic doctrines, but arche-types in a cosmology.

The left is much more language based than the right, they're bigger word thinkers.

The language surrounding it betrays the spookiness "The eternal return of fascism", "Neoliberalism– the ideology at the root of all our problems"

corrected*

Wew. Even Hillary knows she lost.

These things are material manifestations of ideology when they are ideologically motivated.

It is adhered to by politicians like Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, George Soros, Obama, you fucking name it. It doesn't control everyone or anything, it just motivates the political actions of fucking political actors. It's not even fucking shadowy! Look up the Washington Consensus.

Do you think that if you come up with these vaguely Zizekian turns of phrase and use the term 'spooks' you can just ignore reality?

Also are you really fucking arguing that fascism has no actual adherents who believe in its tenets?

*politicians and other political actors like

As I said, it is the conspiracy of everyone, the free-market-but-not-libertarian-tier-free-market that is the situation in pretty much the whole world because different interests, motivations, ideologies and forces leave little room for purity. This is then presented as an all-encompassing ideology in itself, instead of the synthesis that it truly is. In the leftist worldview, the map is the territority, it needs primary colors, the -isms, to fill in the images.

You don't ignore the surface when you scratch beneath it.

Not to it's opponents, to them fascism is the territority that occupies the space beyond their lines. This is why it so fluid.

Wow, how did you use so many words to say nothing at all?

Also
Idealist spotted.

follow the money fam

...

...

...

She looks like she's in pain because her catheter came loose again.

You are missing my point entirely. Look at the fragment I was quoting, and the language it uses. The author is trying as hard as possible to portray markets and changes in markets as impersonal forces largely beyond human control or the results thereof.

Look at how they frame Trump's potential impact on the economy - he erects barriers to trade, the economy goes into recession. They explicitly avoid the intermediary steps that causes one to lead to the other - investors start thinking that they can't make a profit so they hoard all their money (that they can live off of for several human lifetimes) instead of investing it. Thus, we transform the self-interested behaviour of several individuals into something impersonal, like gravity, which we can't do anything about! Why they do this is obvious, because it raises an equally obvious question - why don't we do something about these investors, these bankers, then, and forget about Trump?

This is one of the cornerstones of liberal ideology. They are the ones who want as few people as possible to understand how capitalism actually works, because once we understand how it is defined by social relations, we can easily challenge these relations. Hell, the Austrian School's fucking raison d'etre is doing this, along with sweeping the relations of production under the rug by inventing a nice neat world of firms and consumers where things just happen.

The market as human social interactions is real. The market as impersonal force is a spook.

If you had watched the debate you would have known. Here is a clearer one of her disdain. Bill thrown in for extra effort. Hell, the whole family.

I did watch the debate faggot

so you're just buttmad because they talked about "markets" going up and down and not investors being skittish or such

Sure you did, faggot.

They are pushing an ideology and this kind of talk is in large part responsible for why so many things have this view of economic relations that they do.

A liberal rag would never say that some believe that 'the possibility of a Trump victory and the enactment of policies that he has promised will lead to investors refusing to invest, which will have the effect of slowing the economy down' because it reveals too much about how the system works. I'm pretty sure these people have editorial boards that enforce style guides designed with preventing this in mind.

Now, I'm pretty sure they could have never used the 'investors are skittish' line in this context. I haven't done a meta-analysis on this yet, but I'm pretty sure that whenever investors are skittish in the news, they're not skittish about the behaviour of other investors or their potential ability to make a profit (or how changes in the law or labour regulations might infringe upon this ability), they're always just skittish about the market, which is to say the spooky impersonal market over which we have no control. It's a prima facie case of using a simpler term to save time, but if you look into it there's a very clear ideological motivation behind the language that they use, and that's as a form of avoiding concepts that might lead to dissent by way of illustrating how markets serve particular individual interests and how they slow down not because of the nature of things, but because certain people aren't getting their way.

...

* large part responsible for why so many people have the view of economic relations that they do.

sorry, it's late

I was in the M-C-M stream.
fuck off back to >>>Holla Forums faggot

...

If you want to define cultural marxism as "taking it up the bum" then i think we can all agree that it exists, but thats not the fucking definition is it?

Cultural marxism is the idea that any progressive values are secretly a plot by the jews to destroy western civilization.

On the other hand is the ideology that (according to that article) "sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."

The difference is that we don't think people who created neo-liberal ideology were actively trying to destroy anything, we just look at it and point out how it harms us.

similarly we can have a discussion about whether "progressive values" are good or bad in society, but that doesn't mean cultural marxism is a thing.

So who else is voting Jill Stein?

ey

anyone dumb enough to vote, but smart enough to not go full retard

...

...

Hillary won? when, she got outed as the corrupted bitch she is

no, it´s a way of thinking which originated from the Frankfurt school, and its ideas proliferate in the left like a out of control forest fire!

my sides
not even making this up

not le argument

So why don't you tell us all what the Frankfurt school was teaching people?

what

...

Is there anyone here that thinks the media isn't a bunch of biased incompetent liars?

I don't give a shit about any of this one way or the other, but there is one thing that I do give a shit about. OP, you just fucked up. You had ONE JOB, and ya blew it.

You used, "hilarious", but you should have used…

Awwww…You think there was a left candidate on stage. That's cute.

Why is pooh so cute? I just want to squeeze his fat fluffy cheeks…

Yes, so called low information voters

The media said Trump voters were low info though, and that's why they hate them.

Congratulations, you are retarded

Why does this communist agenda get on the front page?

GAS THE KIKES Nazi masturbation fantasy NOW

i can't help but feel that bill was feeling very guilty indeed for what he'd done to his wife and the party over these years.

jill's my girl
i even got my fiscally conservative dad to drink the koolaid
"she's the only one who's remotely sane this election holy fuck"

Trump is the media's court jester

they hope he wins because they get more viewers

the only anti-trump thing is trump himself

Stop objectifying him, you rapist.