A very liberal outlook is that National Socialism is the German fascism which are inevitably described as nationalist, chauvinist, and, far right movements, and that neoliberalism is the globalization of world markets based on liberal norms and institutions such as mutual cooperation, democracy™ and the WTO. No liberal will be able to explain how they arose beyond "a bunch of well meaning people looked the other way and let the bad people commit atrocities". In the case of neoliberalism, they'll deny it's existence or assert it is good, still unable to explain how it arose beyond "all the factories went away."
Marxists (generally speaking) posited that fascism (including national socialism, the unique system of fascism that arose due to Germany's unique conditions) arose in response to the Soviet Union and the strengthening worker's movements in other European countries. As the contradictions heightened and the workers grew more militant, the forces of reaction formed a popular front (a reactionary front?) as a bulwark to stave off the worker's revolution. This front was class collaborationist, primordialist, and chauvinist on all fronts. It was reaction distilled just as Napoleon had been to the Jacobins or the third Napoleon to the Commune.
Many African and Middle Eastern Marxists stretched this a little bit and said that fascism was colonialism coming home and treating the labor aristocrats (workers) of the European world as the state treated the colonized people of the third world.
From a Marxist perspective, neoliberalism is something like: The final finacialization stage of imperialism, when industrial capital is completely exported from the imperial core to the third world because of the diminishing rate of profit on the value of labor in the imperial core. I think it is in Kapital that Marx discusses how with the advent of European capitalism, the serfs became free to sell their labor and since that had to be in a market, they had to be equal in the eyes of the law, so liberal capitalism created Free Men with free labor to sell. Well neoliberalism does much of the same in the third world with domestic, foreign, and international law. In the eyes of the law they are equal, but we know the reality of the situation.
Since industrial capital in the imperial core leaves during neoliberalism, the former labor aristocrats must begin facing the actual competitive rates for labor, and one should note that the value of labor is tied to the cost of subsistence. This means standards of living decrease and perhaps the labor aristocrat may be reduced to a true proletarian once again. This heightens the contradictions, which spurs the organization and radicalization of the laboring classes and the bourgeoisie form their reactionary fascist front once again.
I always say that fascism is the bourgeoisie' stick while neoliberalism is just a classification of the sub-capitalist economic order (or mode of production) we live in.
A very liberal outlook is that National Socialism is the German fascism which are inevitably described as nationalist, chauvinist, and, far right movements, and that neoliberalism is the globalization of world markets based on liberal norms and institutions such as mutual cooperation, democracy™ and the WTO. No liberal will be able to explain how they arose beyond "a bunch of well meaning people looked the other way and let the bad people commit atrocities". In the case of neoliberalism, they'll deny it's existence or assert it is good, still unable to explain how it arose beyond "all the factories went away."
Marxists (generally speaking) posited that fascism (including national socialism, the unique system of fascism that arose due to Germany's unique conditions) arose in response to the Soviet Union and the strengthening worker's movements in other European countries. As the contradictions heightened and the workers grew more militant, the forces of reaction formed a popular front (a reactionary front?) as a bulwark to stave off the worker's revolution. This front was class collaborationist, primordialist, and chauvinist on all fronts. It was reaction distilled just as Napoleon had been to the Jacobins or the third Napoleon to the Commune.
Many African and Middle Eastern Marxists stretched this a little bit and said that fascism was colonialism coming home and treating the labor aristocrats (workers) of the European world as the state treated the colonized people of the third world.
From a Marxist perspective, neoliberalism is something like: The final finacialization stage of imperialism, when industrial capital is completely exported from the imperial core to the third world because of the diminishing rate of profit on the value of labor in the imperial core. I think it is in Kapital that Marx discusses how with the advent of European capitalism, the serfs became free to sell their labor and since that had to be in a market, they had to be equal in the eyes of the law, so liberal capitalism created Free Men with free labor to sell. Well neoliberalism does much of the same in the third world with domestic, foreign, and international law. In the eyes of the law they are equal, but we know the reality of the situation.
Since industrial capital in the imperial core leaves during neoliberalism, the former labor aristocrats must begin facing the actual competitive rates for labor, and one should note that the value of labor is tied to the cost of subsistence. This means standards of living decrease and perhaps the labor aristocrat may be reduced to a true proletarian once again. This heightens the contradictions, which spurs the organization and radicalization of the laboring classes and the bourgeoisie form their reactionary fascist front once again.
I always say that fascism is the bourgeoisie' stick while neoliberalism is just a classification of the sub-capitalist economic order (or mode of production) we live in.