There is a big difference between the level of sophistication of liberal propoganda, that encompasses the entire history, laws, and institutions of the U.S., and libertarian propoganda, which is pretty much just slapped together whenever billionaires want to push for deregulation.
And free-market libertarianism is a very recent ideology that only has the real backing of billionaires. Free-soil and other types of libertarianism existed prior, but the type that is specifically pushed by the political compass is a recent ideological addition.
I have to disagree. Particularly in the last half century, libertarian propaganda has enjoyed an enormous increase in sophistication and institutional support.
Free market ideology is as old as merchantilism. The ideals of colonialism are rooted in the pseudo-liberationist philosophy of white evangelical Protestantism.
Modern Libertarianism is the Western answer to Communist Anti-Colonialism, as it attempts to rephrase imperial expansion as liberal modernism. But the root ideas of markets as a mechanism of social organization (and control) are as old as currency itself.
Interesting, I'll have to look into that. That's not my read of the history, since currency itself was always a method of state social control, and thus deeply tied into controlled markets, but maybe the ideological propoganda has always been there.
Yeah, libertarians have been able to conquer most economics undergrads, but most masters and PhD work is still just going 'wait, what, it doesnt actually work that way?'.
That’s not my read of the history, since currency itself was always a method of state social control, and thus deeply tied into controlled markets
I mean, yes. But I'm coming at this rhetorically. Markets are "liberated" for trade and then debts are collected in the coin of the realm.
I get the sense we're both pulling from Graeber's Debt:5000 from different perspective, though.
Yeah, libertarians have been able to conquer most economics undergrads, but most masters and PhD work is still just going ‘wait, what, it doesnt actually work that way?’.
Everyone at the Chicago School coming out with PhDs will tell you it does work and exactly as intended.
More than a few Leftists will tell you its working as intended, as well. Although, others might note the unsustainable mounting contradictions.
But a guy like Richard Wolfe will note that a lot of econ academia is just the sales end of capitalist ideology.
I'm pulling abit from Graeber, but you can see this type of behavior in accounts from Xenophon as well, it's a well documented historical phenomenon. You can't just get the hill tribes to accept your currency no matter how 'economically fair and sound' it is. Subjugation by the state must come first, thus invalidating any natural occurrence of libertarian ideology, at least involving currency.
Sure, but that is one school out of thousands. There is a reason their PhDs get to directly tinker with national economies, but as you pointed out it's not because they're right, it's because they agreed and valorize the ideology of 'put the most money in the hands of those most capable to wield it, which is me and my buddies obviously'.
But even then, Chicago School guys are generally only ever put in control of privatizing economies that the system wants to see collapsed and rebuilt, rarely ever matured late-stage capitalist projects. Once the money is all in the hands of the most capable, they are fucked and growth still stagnates. Hell, the Chicago School guys who were with Liz Truss nearly completely tanked the British economy in three weeks. There are still alot of neo-Keynesian and classical economists that mostly dominate the positions of power.
There is a big difference between the level of sophistication of liberal propoganda, that encompasses the entire history, laws, and institutions of the U.S., and libertarian propoganda, which is pretty much just slapped together whenever billionaires want to push for deregulation.
And free-market libertarianism is a very recent ideology that only has the real backing of billionaires. Free-soil and other types of libertarianism existed prior, but the type that is specifically pushed by the political compass is a recent ideological addition.
I have to disagree. Particularly in the last half century, libertarian propaganda has enjoyed an enormous increase in sophistication and institutional support.
Free market ideology is as old as merchantilism. The ideals of colonialism are rooted in the pseudo-liberationist philosophy of white evangelical Protestantism.
Modern Libertarianism is the Western answer to Communist Anti-Colonialism, as it attempts to rephrase imperial expansion as liberal modernism. But the root ideas of markets as a mechanism of social organization (and control) are as old as currency itself.
Interesting, I'll have to look into that. That's not my read of the history, since currency itself was always a method of state social control, and thus deeply tied into controlled markets, but maybe the ideological propoganda has always been there.
Yeah, libertarians have been able to conquer most economics undergrads, but most masters and PhD work is still just going 'wait, what, it doesnt actually work that way?'.
I mean, yes. But I'm coming at this rhetorically. Markets are "liberated" for trade and then debts are collected in the coin of the realm.
I get the sense we're both pulling from Graeber's Debt:5000 from different perspective, though.
Everyone at the Chicago School coming out with PhDs will tell you it does work and exactly as intended.
More than a few Leftists will tell you its working as intended, as well. Although, others might note the unsustainable mounting contradictions.
But a guy like Richard Wolfe will note that a lot of econ academia is just the sales end of capitalist ideology.
I'm pulling abit from Graeber, but you can see this type of behavior in accounts from Xenophon as well, it's a well documented historical phenomenon. You can't just get the hill tribes to accept your currency no matter how 'economically fair and sound' it is. Subjugation by the state must come first, thus invalidating any natural occurrence of libertarian ideology, at least involving currency.
Sure, but that is one school out of thousands. There is a reason their PhDs get to directly tinker with national economies, but as you pointed out it's not because they're right, it's because they agreed and valorize the ideology of 'put the most money in the hands of those most capable to wield it, which is me and my buddies obviously'.
But even then, Chicago School guys are generally only ever put in control of privatizing economies that the system wants to see collapsed and rebuilt, rarely ever matured late-stage capitalist projects. Once the money is all in the hands of the most capable, they are fucked and growth still stagnates. Hell, the Chicago School guys who were with Liz Truss nearly completely tanked the British economy in three weeks. There are still alot of neo-Keynesian and classical economists that mostly dominate the positions of power.