>It exists purely to legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology.
As opposed to which model? The highly successful communist alternative?
As opposed to which model? The highly successful communist alternative?
Probably something that doesn't blow up every 5-7 years or pushes us into a climate apocalypse.
"Climate apocalypse" is a function of capitalism/"neoliberal economics" only insofar that this system provides things that make living nice and comfortable - like smart-phones, air-conditioning on hot days, heating in the winter, affordable air travel, meat, washing machines, etc - and there is no way to provide those things to 7 billion people without major impact on the environment. You can choose a system that makes everybody poor and consequently environmentally friendly - but do you really want to?
How, then, would there have been an economic system which fits neither Neoliberal nor Communist models? It's super simple: there are more than two competing systems.
But they would be wrong, it's the other way around.
> and Xi Jinping would tell you that the PRC is socialist (with Chinese characteristics!),
It is, economically speaking, at least until it entered the WTO it was 100% a socialist country.
You're conflating politics and economics, China is a socialist country, Sweden is mostly a socialist country, Italy is mostly a socialist country, the state has a lot of economic power in these countries.
It is simply true.
What the U.S. take wrong (among many other things) is that it is not bad for the citizens. I live in Italy and would never change it for Silicon Valley. I don't want to live where homeless are homeless because the staste cares more about selling more guns, so that another mass shooting in a school can happen, than helping poor people.
Marx is socialist, socialism is not (only) Marxist.
You can be socialist without being Marxist.
So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true.
Okay, understood.
> So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true.
These two things just don't even remotely follow. Socialism isn't Marxism, therefore there have only ever existed Neoliberal and Marxian economic systems?
What do you think Neoliberalism is?
Furthermore, do you believe the United States was Neoliberal in, say, 1963?
One thing worth noting is that fascism (and neo-fascist/nazi groups) was anti capitalist, but not (of course) marxist-socialist.
They have some common ideas, the nationalization of the means of production for example, but it ends there, they aren't against social classes, they aren't against private property, they are simply against free market.
If for Marx communism was the goal, for fascists the goal is complete autarchy.
I would add neo-fascism to the list of anti capitalist movements, even though I sincerely hope they'll disappear ASAP.
I don't know what to tell you, but the Keynesianism the US applied before 1973 is fundamentally different from what followed in Reaganomics--i.e., Neoliberalism.
I don't think you have a strong grasp on what the word means.
It is true, but I think it was more about war reconstruction and applied automation that drove the public spending up.
Governments had to deal with the consequences of the war and made everything possible to give people a job, a purpose, to let the war behind.
The crisis of 1973 revealed the truth: that kind of growth is not sustainable, especially if it's global (in Italy we call that period "Italian economic miracle", it was more "spending the Marshall's plan money without thinking of the consequences on the future").
But without doubts it was different from Reaganomics, if I'm not wrong it was even possible to approve in the 60s a public healthcare system (kind of) in USA named Medicare. Of course the conservative attacked the idea and Reagan in particular was very vocal about invasion of the freedom and all the usual things they say.
But, if Reagan's idea of economy won is not because Reagan was particularly good, but because lobbies invested an enormous amount of money on propaganda and people in the 70s had good jobs, a powerful enemy to fight, baby boomers had lived 30 years of peace, fought no war and didn't think enough of the consequences of leaving the poorest behind.
They had been educated to believe that if you put enough effort in something, you will succeed.
If you don't succeed, it's because you haven't worked hard enough.
In places like Europe, were being socialist was not seen as a crime, public debate never ceased to address the fundamental differences between a free market economy (even with Keynesian bits) and a more equal society based on the idea that everyone deserves the same level of services from the state and the same protection, regardless of the single economic power.
So in a way USA before 1973 was more similar to what we call socialism, but not for the same (correct?) reason.
It was the best way they had found to sustain growth and fight unemployment and consequently discontent, but they did'nt really believe in a more equal society, that is the base for the economic ideas of socialism.
Where is it evident that protectionism would sustainably help and not reduce aggregate demand or in fact not lower employment? And how would one prevent even more entrenched oligopolies?
Australia is an example of a protectionist capitalist society: in fact, its first federal government was formed by a party called the Protectionist Party, with the support of the union-based Labor Party.[0] Unions are relatively strong there, compared to the rest of the world, and Australia's immigration policy is pretty tight, which protects workers there from foreign competition. Consequently, workers have some of the highest (minimum) wages in the world, and enjoy relatively excellent working conditions. The economy has also been doing well since the 1990s, despite the GFC and everything.
The EU is probably another example: strong labour laws with stringent labour market tests and excellent working conditions, as well as stringent requirements on a wide range of commodities that has to be satisfied by imports.
Please define what you mean by "protectionist".
In what sense are unions not protectionist? Their sole function is to protect the labour market. I'd view unions in Australia as really protectionist: they've managed to secure very high minimum wages, as well as highly restrictive immigration policies that Trump praised to high heaven.[0]
>Also the protectionist government you are referring to the cabinet which was active until 1903
Their immigration policy[1] lasted for decades, before being replaced by the current immigration policy. The Protectionist Party[2] hung around until 1909, when they merged into the Commonwealth Liberal Party. This party was a predecessor of the current Liberal Party:
Protectionist + Anti-Socialist -> Commonwealth Liberal
Commonwealth Liberal + National Labor -> Nationalist
Nationalist + dissident Labor + Australian -> United Australian -> Liberal
So there is still protectionism hanging around in both major political parties today.
>the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing?
It's spelled Labor, because modern spelling.[3] And Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996 (Hawke[4], then Keating[5]), so that productivity growth in the 1990s... probably Labor's fault? Lol. I think the proliferation of personal computers may have had more to do with it.
[0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-s..., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/01/donald-trump...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party
The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment.
Also, I don’t understand. At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then?
I'm not sure which part of the Australian politics I've described doesn't fit your definition of what protectionism is.
I've certainly gone into great length about restrictive immigration policies: in fact, one of the first pieces of legislation of the Barton government was the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act,[0] the passage of which was a condition of Labor's guarantee of confidence and supply for the minority Protectionist government.
The 1901 election itself[1] was straight from the textbooks: Protectionist vs. Free Trade vs. Labor. Protectionism (Protectionists and Labor) won that election, both in terms of seats and popular vote. You couldn't get a more literal election than that.
As for tariffs and selective subsidies, Australia has that too.[2][3][4]
>The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment.
You're presuming a fragmented union ecosystem, which isn't quite the reality in Australia. The Labor party was founded as the political arm of the unions; this shows a high enough degree of co-ordination amongst the unions at the very least.
And once you have a party in parliament, you get the power to influence policy-making in such a way as to protect the labour market. A single union may only be able to protect its own members, but a well-coordinated group of unions is well-positioned to protect the entire labour market itself. Labor did that in spades in the early days of federation, and still does to this day.
>At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then?
I did not. You wrote:
>>yet the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing?
I pointed out that you missed the fact that Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996.
I then made the facetious statement that perhaps it was Labor's fault that the 90s boom happened: this was a joke because, clearly, nobody blames a party for a good economy.
I then went on to suggest that the productivity growth may perhaps be more reasonably attributed to the proliferation of PCs, and the attendant automation. There are other plausible factors for the boom: the economic rise of China must surely have been one.
In any case, it's simply not true that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Labor during the Hawke-Keating years was uncharacteristically enthusiastic about reforms, and I think the success of their policies may have inspired the Third Way of Blairite Labour.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_19...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_Australian_federal_electi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_Australi...
A small community of people could come up with the greatest governmental system we could ever dream of, but if the leaders of the current system believe it to be a threat they could wipe out its adherents before it is ever properly understood by the wider population. Or spread misinformation about it to dissuade people from finding out more about it for themselves.
I have absolutely zero faith in the average HN user to understand, but why should I explicitly appease their ignorance? The downside is people like you, who obviously realise that it could be irony, might imagine the avg HNer would legit say it.