Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShittyBeatlesFCPres t1_j1q4eha wrote

Reply to comment by MuchoGrandeRandy in was neoliberal globalisation justified? by ecstasyandeuphoria

Maybe. It’s hard to overstate how powerful America was in the 90’s and he was the president. His administration botched the former Soviet Union’s transition(s) to capitalism because they were neoliberal ideologues and thought Shock Therapy was better than gradualism (or even shock therapy but with some protections for workers and the environment). That led directly to oligarchs and Putin. His administration passed NAFTA without measures to help workers. He made the Democrats a neoliberal party. His administration allowed the Travelers and Citi merger (which basically meant the end of Glass-Steagall and all the protections that probably would have stopped the 2008 financial crisis).

Bill Clinton did a lot of good things but his administration faced a unique historical moment while the post-cold war world order was being established. He was the main neoliberal and that’s what was asked about. Neoconservatives were far worse (as the 2000s and George W Bush would show) but I think as history played out, we really learned Bill Clinton was a pretty lousy president.

3

MuchoGrandeRandy t1_j1qnqbp wrote

Glass - Steagall was an element of Gingrch's Contract on America.

Not saying Clinton was a good president, just saying the president is not a dictator and nothing happens in a vacuum.

1

ecstasyandeuphoria OP t1_j1wryvm wrote

hey thanks for ur insight. can i just ask how specifically neoliberalism allowed the rise of putin and the russian oligarchies? and what do you mean by kleptocracy?

1

ShittyBeatlesFCPres t1_j1x4pd9 wrote

Kleptocracy is basically government controlled by oligarchs where they steal and embezzle and give government contracts to friends.

When the Soviet Union was transitioning to capitalism, the Clinton administration sent some economic advisors like Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs and they pushed hard for “shock therapy,” or a rapid switch to neoliberal capitalism. It went extremely poorly and basically wrecked the Russian economy. Worse than the Great Depression. Massive rise in poverty. Everyone’s savings gone. And, since they were taking state assets and making them private all at once, a handful of well-connected men — now known as the oligarchs — were able to get control of whole industries. Corruption was rampant. Those oligarchs had obscene amounts of money and it bought them a massive amount of power in newly capitalist Russia. And they basically made Putin, a little known ex-KGB/FSB agent, the prime minister.

Then, in 1999 President Boris Yeltzin unexpectedly resigned on New Year’s Eve. Putin, as prime minister, was next in line for the Presidency. Russians were (and still are) understandably resentful of the West for fucking up their transition to capitalism. Americans usually view the end of the Cold War as a victory for freedom (and it was for parts of Europe) but Russians view it as a catastrophe that wrecked their lives. Putinism is basically a nationalist ideology that came in reaction to that era. That’s why they think it’s fine to retake Ukraine. To them, it was a part of the former strong and proud Russia that was stolen by the corrupt west.

2

ecstasyandeuphoria OP t1_j1yflyv wrote

before neoliberalism, was the homogenous corporate plaza (parking lots with the exact same stores/restaurants) just as prevalent as they are today? or did the rise of neoliberal policies facilitate its growth

1

ShittyBeatlesFCPres t1_j1zis8p wrote

Globalization largely did that but neoliberalism was the driving ideology of the era. Not every city is the same by any means but there was a time when imported products were more expensive due to protectionism. Protectionism is mostly bad for economies so there was plenty of reason to have free trade agreements. But it also meant that in the developed world, a lot of factories moved to cheaper countries and those products were then exported everywhere.

So, it was more efficient. A lot of products got cheaper and became available to people for the first time. But it also meant a place like Manhattan started to feel like the downtown of every global city. Local businesses found it harder to compete to with multinational companies with global supply chains and local stores got replaced by huge chain stores.

It also meant many places that used to have manufacturing became rust belts. Essentially, products and money could move across borders freely but workers could not (and still can’t). So, manufacturers moved plants to places where labor was cheap and/or workers had fewer rights. Unions in America severely declined. Prices also fell — in some cases by a huge amount — so for most people, it was worth it. But a lot of cities (and people in them) never recovered.

When free trade agreements are being passed, the argument in favor is usually that we’ll all be better off. But the economic theory arguing that is basically that we all can be better off if the winners from the change are basically taxed to compensate the losers. Not necessarily forever or with cash transfers but enough that there’s an easy transition. But that requires more left wing policies and neoliberalism rejected that. Bill Clinton’s whole thing was being a centrist who moved Democrats to the right (in response to Democrats losing elections in the 80’s, to be clear, but it still happened). So, instead, people in globalized industries usually just lost their jobs and were largely left to fend for themselves. People were told to “learn to code” so often without any help to do so that it’s become a meme anytime someone loses a job to say “learn to code” sarcastically.

To reiterate: free trade agreements make most people better off. If you didn’t work in a factory that moved, you got cheaper stuff. Lots of people got super rich and lots more people worked for expanding companies or in newly in-demand fields and did fine. But the downsides were real and largely dismissed and ignored by neoliberals for ideological reasons. (and most conservatives, obviously, but they were never advocates of workers the way left wing parties usually are).

2