As a psychologist I see the fantasy of neoliberal values having a devastating effect on mental healt

Sorry - that way a typo/brain-glitch that I edited before you replied, but it looks like after you started your reply. I meant to write 'insufficiently socialist'.

I think I was largely discussing politics with American conservatives, who tended to use 'liberal' as an insult for all who were on the left.

 

TO my understanding Neoliberal means corporate or technocratic rule. Corporations co-opted Milton Friedman's new liberalism for their own benefit and use it with an Orwellian meaning.

 

We are in a funny situation in the United States where conservatives insult "liberals" as "leftists," and leftists insult liberals as "neoliberals."

Which is why the center did not hold.

Bill

 

Classically "neoliberalism" in political science terms referred to people devoted to libertarian/Ayn Randian/Austrian School of Economics-type extreme free-marketism. It isn't the sort of ideology embraced by modern liberals.

Now it is used to slur anyone not on the socialist left (and particularly liberal politicians) as corporatists. This is a corruption of the term, and why it has become inflammatory for liberals.

Bill

 

There are good reasons to use the terms "propaganda" and "neoliberal ideology" (sure, with that comes an economic mindset, not an economic theory). I only have good sources for explanations in German and to repeat it here would maybe be inappropriate.

I cannot see why a person with ME AND without lots of money would be gladly accepting neoliberal viewpoints IF this person knew these viewpoints. Often, people don't know the neoliberal values and goals, or how the systems works (e.g. the financial system, in particular how money is created). They are told "this is so good for you!" and most people believe. I cannot explain otherwise why people, for instance, accept "free market rules" for the health system. People aren't cars that can be produced (cared for) faster, cheaper and still better (i.e. efficient), but this is tried, e.g. spraying instead of showering, only that the quality gets worse.

Then, over the years, social aid was cut: lower sick leave money, unemployed payments (plus shorter time) and basic social aid (which at least in Germany is a disgrace). Even if I never heard of "neoliberalism", as soon as I were sick or unemployed - the new garbage of society (at least, that's what they let me know; I don't feel like garbage) - I would have to realize something is really wrong. Instead, people accept the notion it's their own fault (e.g. here comes the propaganda). Which cannot be backed-up by reality. (Why e.g. is it my fault to be unemployed if official statistics show there are ca. 5mio. unemployed and 1mio free jobs? The fault is not to be perfect or else you would have won the fight for one of those jobs.)

Neoliberalism is not a term for a party, and it is not only about an economical view - or a model. Or if so, this view had very wide ranging consequences, like "everything for the market". At least to me that sounds a little fanatic.

What's the theory? Can you point to the mathematical model behind that? (I saw some of those models and the assumptions thst go with it.) Even economists say neoliberalism is not an economic model (or theory) because, for one, they realized there is no proof for the assumption of how the free market works - quite the contrarx, comparing regulated mechanisms with deregulated ones most iften show that the regulated ones are economical more efficient.

There is also a "psychiatriac label" for people who don't care if someone is sick or poor or need help - this is a critique on neoliberalism, not on you, ok?

"neoliberal" does not only mean "the new liberal". Again this is why one could call that propaganda - it sounds positive, the "new/modern liberals". Without looking up what neoliberalism really means and is, you will say: liberalism is great, so is neoliberalism.

If one thinks it's great that everything and everyone has to put his entire energy and motivation in profit maximation ("work") - no private life, no private aims - if it's okay that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, if someone believes in the "good free market" and that it's a "natural law" without any alternatives, and if this person agrees to "the war of classes, where the rich are winning" (Warren Buffet), this is, amongst others, neoliberal ideology.

Personally, I think it's very positive that this topic is picked out by a psychologist.

 

Jay Watts is from the UK, and the British Dictionary defines neoliberalism as

 

Maybe we should have a forum poll on whether "neoliberalism" is our forum 'n' word and ban it?

It seems to mean different things to different people, and to be offensive to some.

My current view is that it appeared in a British newspaper for a British audience. Does the fact that in the US people like to use it to wind each other up mean we can't report on it when it's used in a British newspaper in an article of relevance to ME sufferers?

 

Maybe because "liberal" is not the same as "neoliberal"? This is really interesting, by the way. Although I may have a feeling why this may be so, would you be willing to explain?

Personally, I do not link neoliberalism to a political area or to a certain party. As an ideology it would be independent from that. I would call someone "neoliberal" who stands for neoliberal values and/or propagates them.

Edit: you already did, sorry.

 

I agree. You cannot separate laws about disability rights, social aid and their downwards motion without linking them to a government who made it.

With respect to ME, I explicitly know that the German chancellor knows about the problems of people with ME, and the department for health, too. Statement: It's not our problem, science has to solve that.
That's not completely true. The government makes the laws, and then the according officials realize them. So if a sick person, e.g. with ME, gets no paid diagnosis or treatment, no pensions and no disability rights, this is linked with a government. Sure, there are other networks, too.

 

@Bill: I really don't understand why "neoliberal" is connected to actual parties. At least to me, it makes no sense. That doesn't count so much because you tell in US "neoliberal" is understood inflammatory, which I find interesting.

Why is that? We see it's used to destort and offend in the US. It's quite an intetesting evolvement I realized myself: Some time ago, nearly nobody used "neoliberal", or knew what it means. I also thought it means "the new liberal". Today, people seem to be more informed. Maybe this became a problem.

Whenever certain developments or movements aren't wanted, some words are introduced and supplied with an inflammatory, belittling meaning. Here in Germany, for example, it's "populism," "nazi", "right", "rascist"...So whenever someone establishes justified critique he is silenced down with "he's a populist", "he's a rascist"...and most people just accept that.
It's the "divide and rule" principle, and we mustn't allow that here.

I always ask: Who profits from what? And: Where does the money go?

 

Personally from following events relating to (socialised) medicine and ME, mental health seems like it could be a bottomless pit. Lots of people could feel a bit down and/or anxious a lot of the time. Large chunks of a health budget could be spent on this with little money for biomedical investigations and drug therapies.

 

I think they are afraid of ME because it could be a bottomless pit as everyone feels fatigue. I've often thought it very devious that the same people responsible for redefining a specific neurological disease with a specific reaction to exertion into "chronic fatigue" which is universal, then went on to make money from insurance companies who panicked at the thought of the money they would have to pay out.

 

Wow Germany must be slacking a little bit if you don't have the, "that's a conspiracy theory", line.

Its a catch all. Evidence establishing is unnecessary in the equation when you can just use straw mans like, "I suppose you think there are lizards on the dark side of the moon too", when one questions a government or news narrative.

 

Everything is perfect, all are happy. Of course I'm a conspiracy theorist.

That one was good!
But in a way that's happening. Here, experts are called "conspiracy theorists" when they say critical things.

 

I heard the argument "ME will destroy the health system due to its horrendous costs" very often. I can only speak for the country I live in. I haven't (yet) tried to get a calculation about ME costs (I wanted to do that and compare it with Cancer, Aids, e.g.). It would be interesting.

Yet, my opinion is that's not so important for politics. I will never again believe any politician who says "we don't have money". They wonderously had nearly 100 billion from one day to another which they could give to bankers, "here kids, now go playing again, be good, will you?"

But they don't have a few billion or so (just a wild estimate) to help sick, disabled, old, poor people and children. The original idea of taxes was exactly this: help those who can't work or didn't get work (because not working meant the end).

Agency for health wrote to me they can't do anything for ME, science has to do that. I asked about research projects they funded. No reply, which is short for "none, now bugger off".

Instead they seem to favor financing "studies" about interventions that remind me a little of esoterics. I won't say it's all bad - some people like it - but maybe it should be prioritized.

 

Today I saw a talk by a psychologist and psychotherapist about problems he faces with neoliberal values in his every day work. He critisizes those values because they create several problems in people, e.g. with their identity.

Erich Fromm said it provocatively: "The normal are the sick, and the sick are the healthiest", which he says in the context of "emotional health". His explanation: the normal are so assimilated that they don't react humanely anymore, the "sick" still have the ability to react with feelings to external input.

 

I suspect that the cost of figuring out what's up with ME and treating, if not curing, it would be considerably lower than not doing so.

The main difference is in the distribution of outgoing payments.

edit - unfortunately for the "establishment" the traditional method of ignoring those they can't treat and they'll stop being a problem once they die, doesn't work, coz we have this bloody stupid disease that removes our life but doesn't actually kill us.

 

That's a very interesting aspect!