Eto to je neoliberalizam

Evrovizija bi bila do jaja kad bi imala kajron dole za poruke gledaoca, fazon jovor sedi u fotelji pred kaminom srče LAGAVULIN dočekao caricu breskvicu srpčicu svojeručicu a dole piči poruka u sred izvedbe WHOS THIS LITTLE BITCH

The term neoliberalism has become more prevalent in recent decades to describe the transformation of society due to market-based reforms. A prominent factor in the rise of conservative and right-libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them, neoliberalism is often associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. The neoliberal project is also focused on designing institutions and is political in character rather than only economic.

Tradicionalno ljevičarski Gardijan, ima tri teksta izričito protiv neoliberalizma:

For any question as broad as this one, the first thing I'd say is that any answer is going to be limited. I am a specialist on 20th century American political history, so my answer is going to come from that standpoint, but if you asked, an economist or a historian of postwar Britain, you'd probably get a very different answer. So, with that in mind, I'll give my perspective while also acknowledging that there is always more to be said.

So first off, how do we define exactly what neoliberalism is? There's been literal books written about this topic, but to be concise let's say that it is on some level, a guiding political and economic system that prizes free markets as organizing principle behind social prosperity. In this vision, the market, rather than, say, the government, should be allowed to operate and regulate public life. So, policies like privatization, austerity, free trade, and deregulation all fall under this umbrella because on some level they reflect the idea that markets should be allowed to operate with as little interference as possible, and that government should play a role in assuring this independence.

But obviously behind something as consequential as neoliberalism is a ton of other social and political ideas as well, and this is where we get into the meat of your question. The ideas of neoliberalism had roots long before America and the world's embrace of it - Friedrich Hayek is probably the most famous of these intellectuals. But even though these ideas existed in circulation, neoliberalism really didn't take hold of socio-political life until around the 1970s. Before that, like you said, American life fit into what some historians now call "the New Deal order." The New Deal order describes the socio-political consensus from around the 1930s into the 1970s. In a lot of ways it was an economic system built around Keynesian ideas that government spending could serve as an antidote to economic hardship. But this way of organizing the economy also had profound impacts on social and political life as well. The New Deal saw the early creation of the American welfare state, first with policies like social security and then later developments like Medicare and Medicaid. It saw organized labor as a strong force in social, political, and economic life, whose negotiations with capital assured cycles of mass production and consumption. For a long time this order operated with a relatively bipartisan consensus. Until Barry Goldwater in 1964 (and he lost in a landslide), even the Republican Party tended to marginalize its most conservative, anti-government members.

So what changed? What motivated Americans to turn away from this system of public spending and government welfare toward policies of deregulation and free market ideals? Well, let's start with the economy. Firstly, the stagflation of the 1970s played a central role. Until this point, (post Great Depression at least) America had dealt with its economic downturns in similar, Keynesian fashions: basically pumping money into the economy on the belief it would stimulate economic activity. Stagflation threw a damper into this. The mix of unemployment and inflation cast doubt on the supposed certainty that inflationary economic policies would yield higher growth. Instead, such spending only promised more inflation. This was the first crack in the Keynesian consensus. So how did the nation deal with stagflation? Well, for one, the chair of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, raised interest rates. This had an adverse effect on unemployment, but Volcker resolved to solve the problem of inflation first. In some ways his policy was successful in its goal, but it also had spillover effects. By raising interest rates (which worsened unemployment), Volcker's policy dealt a blow to organized labor; with a weak labor market, unions lost their power. This economic shift was also accompanied by a political shift away from sympathy for labor (think Reagan firing the striking air traffic controllers in 1981).

So basically what we see so far is economic circumstances dealing a blow to the economic principles that undergirded the New Deal Order. But the economic context also had impacts on social and political life. The impact of Volcker's policies meant that labor, maybe the central group in the New Deal Coalition, was weakened both as an economic and political force. This was just one shift, but it portended a much larger change.

On the political side of things, neoliberalism seemed an appealing alternative to the consensus that had come before not just because of the circumstances of stagflation, but also because of shifting attitudes toward the concept of government in American life. The alliance between social conservatism and free market economics is probably the most important political arrangement of the last 50 years, and on its face it's a bit confusing. What unites the two? Well, if you look back to the New Deal Order, a central idea undergirding this system was a faith in public institutions. The New Deal and subsequent decades saw the massive expansion of government bureaucracy, a huge increase in its economic apparatus and a fundamental shift in how people conceived government in their daily lives. By the 1970s, however, some people started to lose faith. There had always been those who opposed the New Deal from a business or anti-government standpoint, but those ideas started to become mainstream over time. Regions like the South jumped from Democratic to Republican as figures like Goldwater and Nixon used anti-government language to appeal to their anti-civil rights sentiments (if you're interested in learning more, look up the Southern Strategy, though I could write another answer entirely about that concept...). Additionally, there were big backlashes from the Right against groups like the Black Panthers, second wave feminists, students in the New Left. A lot of people considered these movements signs of social unrest and decay. But how does this relate back to neoliberalism? Let's look at an example.

Phyllis Schafly was a major figure in the movement of social conservatism that burgeoned in the 1970s and 80s. She led the fight against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, and is probably the single individual most responsible for its demise. Look at what she says in one of her most famous speeches, "What's Wrong with 'Equal Rights' for Women?":

"Our respect for the family as the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization, is the greatest single achievement in the entire history of women’s rights... A woman can enjoy real achievement when she is young—by having a baby. She can have the satisfaction of doing a job well—and being recognized for it. Do we want financial security? We are fortunate to have the great legacy of Moses, the Ten Commandments, especially this one: “Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land.” Children are a woman’s best social security—her best guarantee of social benefits such as old age pension, unemployment compensation, workman’s compensation, and sick leave. The family gives a woman the physical, financial and emotional security of the home—for all her life."

Here, Schafly argues that the ERA, by changing norms around divorce, alimony, child support, etc., will lead to the destruction of the family unit in American life. But look how she connects it to economic circumstances: "Children are a woman's best social security." She's using the family to critique the influence of government and public life on people's private affairs and sense of (often religious) morality. This is something that Melinda Cooper in her book Family Values writes about, basically arguing that social conservatism and free market ideas mixed because of a belief that the American welfare state was detrimental to private life and to the unit of the family. Cooper talks a lot about the inheritance tax in particular and the belief that it hindered generational family prosperity, but this captures a big part of the neoliberal-conservative alliance. The argument went that instead of relying on welfare, people should take personal responsibility; government should create avenues for economic success, but should not play an active role. Whether or not you like this idea will depend on your politics, but at the time it seemed appealing to many. Faith in government was at a low, not just because of stagflation, but also because of Vietnam, and then later scandals like Watergate. More and more people came to lose faith in the government's ability to assure prosperity in social, political, and economic life. So, when charismatic figures like Reagan come along, there was already a huge market (no pun intended) for the supply-side ideas he promoted and the belief that free economic activity could assure widespread prosperity.

Sorry for the absurdly long answer; this is an absurdly complex question. TLDR: in the US, stagflation and other economic crises cast doubt on the Keynesian belief that government activity could assure economic prosperity. Combining that with a broader rise of social conservatism and loss of faith in government, the groundwork was laid for a political alliance that would replace New Deal norms and bring about the subsequent neoliberal order.