Henry Giroux - Public Intellectual

I read this fellow alot. His writing is consise and brilliant. I don't quote him much on ATS for a couple of reasons that are not important to the post at hand.

He describes in two paragraphs here what I could not in several pages about the destrictiveness of Neo-Liberal ideology (Neo-Liberal meaning unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the solution to all problems).

Actually, I'll let him define the term:

Chronis Polychroniou: How do you define neoliberalism?


Henry Giroux: Neoliberalism, or what can be called the latest stage of predatory capitalism, is part of a broader project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital. It is a political, economic and political project that constitutes an ideology, mode of governance, policy and form of public pedagogy.


As an ideology, it construes profit-making as the essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and an irrational belief in the market to solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations.


As a mode of governance, it produces identities, subjects, and ways of life free of government regulations, driven by a survival of the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of ruling groups and institutions to accrue wealth removed from matters of ethics and social costs.


As a policy and political project, neoliberalism is wedded to the privatization of public services, selling off of state functions, deregulation of finance and labor, elimination of the welfare state and unions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, and the marketization and commodification of society.

Neoliberalism drains the pubic treasury while feeding the profits of the rich and the voracious military-industrial complex. In the end, it abolishes institutions meant to eliminate human suffering, protect the environment, ensure the right of unions, and provide social provisions. It has no vision of the good society or the public good and it has no mechanisms for addressing society's major economic, political, and social problems.

And now the problems that are created by this system:

Polychroniou: You claim neoliberalism is the most dangerous ideology of our times. In what ways?
Giroux: Neoliberalism creates a political landscape that destroys the social state, social protections, and democracy itself. As a theater of cruelty, it produces massive inequality in wealth and income, puts political power in the hands of ruling financial elites, destroys all vestiges of the social contract, and increasingly views those marginalized by race, class, disability and age as redundant and disposable. It facilitates the dismantling of democracy and the rise of the punishing state by criminalizing social problems and ruling through a crime-control complex. It also removes economics and markets from the discourse of social obligations and social costs.

The results are all around us, ranging from ecological devastation and widespread economic impoverishment to the increasing incarceration of large segments of the population marginalized by race and class.

The language of possessive individualism now replaces the notion of the public good and all forms of solidarity not aligned with market values. Under neoliberalism the social is pathologized.

As public considerations and issues collapse into the morally vacant pit of private visions and narrow self-interests, the bridges between private and public life are dismantled, making it almost impossible to determine how private troubles are connected to broader public issues. Long-term investments are now replaced by short-term profits while compassion and concern for others are viewed as a weakness.

I just can't say it better.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Nice. That's the overall trend, but all those who care almost all know. What do you think are solutions?

To me, the greatest injustice of the status quo is the way it actively undermines human potential. Most people could accomplish far, far, more than they are with their low paying service jobs, but we've failed to create a system which really releases human greatness. I think devising systems which can release human potential are the way forward, but its going to take some outside the box thinking.

The people who run things want the cash and we are using too much so they shouved us down with "Quiet Weapons for Slient Wars" in order to begin minimizing traditions and the nuke family,so they could begin brainwashing in ernest and depopulation.
THEY don't want you to make it they want what you consume.They haven't COMPLETELY done so because we are too armed.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

While I am tempted to post a critique, I owe it to you to know a little more before I can have a reasonable opinion one way or the other.

Do you like him because he is a Marxist-Socialist, because you agree with him, because his writing is a model of concise, lucid thought, or because of some combination of two or three of those?

Do you think the material you posted is a good example of concise and brilliant writing?

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: FyreByrd

He describes in two paragraphs here what I could not in several pages about the destrictiveness of Neo-Liberal ideology (Neo-Liberal meaning unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the solution to all problems).

I just can't say it better.

Destrictiveness??

You lost me.

a reply to: Psynic

That's not the only place to be lost. This is just a party meeting where everyone is checked out on their ideological correctness and proper use of phrases.

He describes in two paragraphs here what I could not in several pages about the destrictiveness of Neo-Liberal ideology (Neo-Liberal meaning unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the solution to all problems).

Neo-liberalism, under this definition, is an ideology which doesn't exist. Nobody has ever (unless drunk) suggested that unregulated laissez faire capitalism is the solution to all problems. Even Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) had a companion volume on essentials of morality for a free market system.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Psynic

That's not the only place to be lost. This is just a party meeting where everyone is checked out on their ideological correctness and proper use of phrases.

He describes in two paragraphs here what I could not in several pages about the destrictiveness of Neo-Liberal ideology (Neo-Liberal meaning unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the solution to all problems).

Neo-liberalism, under this definition, is an ideology which doesn't exist. Nobody has ever (unless drunk) suggested that unregulated laissez faire capitalism is the solution to all problems. Even Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) had a companion volume on essentials of morality for a free market system.

The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism.

--Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science


The principles and theories presented in this book call for a society of laissez-faire capitalism.

--George Reisman, Toward the Establishment of Laissez-faire Captialism


When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

-- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal


You were saying?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

He describes in two paragraphs here what I could not in several pages about the destrictiveness of Neo-Liberal ideology (Neo-Liberal meaning unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the solution to all problems).

I just can't say it better.

originally posted by: Psynic
Destrictiveness??

You lost me.

Might mean - as in "district" ?

Separations ?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Dear theantediluvian,

Thank you! Fine post. That's reasonable disagreement and I'm grateful for it. Perhaps, there is a small misunderstanding. I'll try to explain.

Oh, by the way, I never even considered Ayn Rand. She never rose to my awareness as anyone but a propagandist. Someone who went extreme to make a point. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, I've done it myself. I'm just saying she didn't come to mind.

The von Mises quote is the one which might show the misunderstanding.

The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism.

--Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science

The von Mises quote is interesting. I can only find it as a footnote to his book. The passage to which the footnote applies is this:

Representative or parliamentary government (also called government by the people or democratic government) is government by officeholders designated by the majority of the people. Demagogues tried to justify it by ecstatic babble about the supernatural inspiration of majorities. However, it is a serious mistake to assume that the nineteenth-century liberals of Europe and America advocated it because they believed in the infallible wisdom, moral perfection, inherent justice, and other virtues of the common man and therefore of majorities.

The liberals wanted to safeguard the smooth evolution of all peoples' prosperity and material as well as spiritual well-being. They wanted to do away with poverty and destitution. As a means to attain these ends they advocated institutions that would make for peaceful cooperation of all citizens within the various nations as well as for international peace.

They looked upon wars, whether civil wars (revolutions) or foreign wars, as a disturbance of the steady progress of mankind to more satisfactory conditions. They realized very well that the market economy, the very basis of modern civilization, involves peaceful cooperation and bursts asunder when people, instead of exchanging commodities and services, are fighting one another.

You see? He is advocating for the idea of a connection between willing cooperation in trade, absence of war, and the advancement of society. He's certainly not discussing regulation at all, or even a wide range of problems.

]The principles and theories presented in this book call for a society of laissez-faire capitalism.
--George Reisman, Toward the Establishment of Laissez-faire Captialism

Thank you for this name. He's an interesting guy. He counts Rand as a source for his thinking and calls himself an Objectivist. Maybe that's part of the reason for his opinions. I hadn't heard of him before, that doesn't prove a thing, but it may be partially due to the fact that he hasn't had any scholarly work published for a dozen years. He does have a blog though.

I'm not sure I understand his thinking very well, not because it's complicated, but because he only presented parts of it and I don't know how he fills in the holes.

Any way, it looks like you were right and I was wrong. Economics does have it's share of extremists. But if this is who Giroux is after, it seems he could be using his time more effectively. I have the impression that he's going after the buggy whip industry, but I could easily be wrong, as I often am.

Do you think there's much interest in eliminating the government except for the purposes of defense, police, international affairs, and courts? I don't see it. At what point do you happen to think we have enough governmental control of citizens' lives? Have we passed it?

Thanks again for your great post, I learned a lot.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

While I am tempted to post a critique, I owe it to you to know a little more before I can have a reasonable opinion one way or the other.

Do you like him because he is a Marxist-Socialist, because you agree with him, because his writing is a model of concise, lucid thought, or because of some combination of two or three of those?

Do you think the material you posted is a good example of concise and brilliant writing?

With respect,
Charles1952

I'd say a bit of everything you said. As I stated I don't quote him for many reasons mostly because I sense truth in his work but something seems off - I distrust arrogance and his 'tone' is very arrogant.

I do find his writing style wonderful and consise - I admire the ability to make ideas clear with few words. I am unable to do it.

I find his writing horribly depressing and while I don't avoid negative analysis, his style makes the 'status quo' seem insurmountable.

I am a Socialist at heart and always have been. I believe in collaboration and inclusion. And I appreciate anyone who will proclaim the same ideals.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: FyreByrd

He describes in two paragraphs here what I could not in several pages about the destrictiveness of Neo-Liberal ideology (Neo-Liberal meaning unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the solution to all problems).

I just can't say it better.

Destrictiveness??

You lost me.

Sorry, my spelling is abysmal. Destructiveness - that's better.

a reply to: charles1952
Wiser men than I have been puzzling over these questions for a very long time. Perhaps that's because language belies their complexity and there is only really ever an unending series of decisions to be made between competing alternatives? Doesn't it all amount to attempts at conscious control of an evolutionary process? The best we can do in my opinion, is to continually seek a more complete understanding and to strive to make increasingly better decisions.

I suppose that dyed-in-the-wool capitalists believe that market forces alone will guide progress in a favorable way but it seems to me that they are grossly mistaken. That's similar in nature to assuming that iterations of democratic voting will necessarily lead to an ideal government and yet revolutions happen.