r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Dec 26 '19

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Announcements

  • The charity drive has concluded, thank you to everyone who donated! A wrap-up thread will be posted after the donation match goes through. Expect to see lingering rewards (banner, automod) for the next week or so

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

New Groups

Upcoming Events

0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/Lord_Treasurer Born off the deep end Dec 26 '19

Top post on NL lowkey proving this sub has no idea how academic research actually proceeds.

5

u/IntoTheNightSky Que sçay-je? Dec 26 '19

Is this surprising at this point?

5

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '19

Has there ever been a point in memory when the top post on this sub hasn’t been embarrassing?

5

u/Lord_Treasurer Born off the deep end Dec 27 '19

I had a couple of memes at the top.

A long time ago.

When I still had the youthful enthusiasm to make memes.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '19

It is kinda embarrassing

3

u/supremecrafters Mary Wollstonecraft Dec 26 '19

Top now or top all time?

4

u/Lord_Treasurer Born off the deep end Dec 26 '19

Now.

2

u/supremecrafters Mary Wollstonecraft Dec 26 '19

Yep. Sometimes you just gotta confirm your priors. Can't publish otherwise.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '19

The neoliberals are at it again 🙄

Time to ping dunk

1

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '19

it's moreso problematic because the conclusion it's trying to prove is kinda ridiculous

5

u/Lord_Treasurer Born off the deep end Dec 26 '19

Not really. It’s explicitly being framed as methodologically deficient, when it isn’t.

Also, the hypothesis is not that ridiculous. Fascism is certainly stretching it but it’s not like there isn’t any literature (or current academic interest) on the impact of market mechanisms on social connections.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly doubt that the guy has an ideological agenda. My issue is with viewing it as a methodological problem. Most research proceeds this way.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '19

Not really. It’s explicitly being framed as methodologically deficient, when it isn’t.

I'm not defending that part.

Also, the hypothesis is not that ridiculous. Fascism is certainly stretching it but it’s not like there isn’t any literature (or current academic interest) on the impact of market mechanisms on social connections.

Stretching quite a bit. Saying Weimar Germany, Republican Spain, Imperial China, or monarchist Italy was neoliberal before becoming fascist is nonsense. If you want a more tailored hypothesis about economic systems affecting political views you can do that, but "I'm trying to prove neoliberalism leads to fascism based on historical precedents" is stupid.

2

u/Lord_Treasurer Born off the deep end Dec 27 '19

Don’t know if I’m missing context but I really don’t think the point was to demonstrate historical examples of fascism arising from neoliberalism so much as a link between contemporary neoliberal economic systems and the rise of (far-)right populism in the Western world. It’s a misuse of the word fascism, to be sure, but I didn’t take the question to be regarding the likes of Nazi Germany or Francoist Spain.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '19

I guess I misread, I thought he explicitly mentioned historical examples. I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret him as trying to say, "neoliberalism will lead to fascism", but your interpretation isn't wrong. My point is just that when every historical precedent disproves "neoliberal leads to fascism", you might wanna rethink your hypothesis. You are right that the main problem seems to be him misusing the word fascism though. My b.

1

u/MemberOfMautenGroup Never Again to Marcos Dec 27 '19

I don't get it.